■mm ii^iM v'V-jyi IliJiSli lii^i ftlwpl iilw fu'fi /•, ‘ >•;• *' '' '\t* ""'■ 1 II j I'th '^,i'., THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA BY GREGORY M, MATHEWS F.R.S.E. MEMBER OF THE AUSTRALIAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION AND THE BRITISH ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION CORRESPONDING FELLOW OP THE AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION WITH HAND-COLOUHEH PLATES ■A VOLUME IV. WITHERBY & CO. 326 HIGH HOLEORN LONDON 1914 — 1915 CONTENTS • 4 " q L (r ^ :-i AND LIST OF PLATES. PAUE Order ANSERIFORMES 1 Genus CHENOPSIS 10 No. 252. Black Swan, Chenopsis atrata . . . . . 12 Plate 200 lettered Chenopsis atrata, to face . . . , 12 Genus ANSERANAS No. 253. Pied Goose, Anseranas semipalmata .... Plate 201 lettered Anseranas semipalmata, to face Genus GHENISCUS No. 254. White-quilled Goose-Teal, Cheniscus coromandelianus alhipennis .......... Plate 202 lettered Nettapus alhipennis, to face . . , No. 255. Green Goose-Teal, Cheniscus pidchellus . .\' Plate 203 lettered Nettapus pulchellus, to face Genus CEREOPSIS No. 256. Cape Barren Goose, Cereopsis novmhollandim Plate 204 lettered Cereopsis novmholkindice, to face Genus CHENONETTA No. 257. Wood-Duck or Maned Goose, Chenonetta juhata Plate 205 lettered Chenonetta juhata, to face 23 25 25 32 35 35 38 38 ' 42 44 44 . 51 53 53 , V. THE BIEDS OP AUSTRALIA. PAGE Genus DENDROCYGNA 00 No. 258. Whistling Duck, Dendrocygna javanica australis . 62 Plate 206 lettered Dendrocygna gouldi, to face . . . 62 Genus CTENANAS 67 No. 259. Plumed Whistling Duck, Ctenanas eytoni . . 68 Plate 207 lettered Dendrocygna eytoni, to face . . . 68 Genus R.ADJAH 72 No. 260. White-headed Sheld-Drake, Radjah radjah rufitergum 74 Plate 208 lettered Tadorna rufitergum, to face . . . 74 • Genus CASARCA 77 No. 261. Mountain Duck, Casarca tadornoides .... 78 Plate 209 lettered Casarca tadornoides, to face . . . 78 . Genus ANAS 84 No. 262. Black Duck, Anas superciliosa rogersi ... 85 Plate 210 lettered Anas superciliosa, to face . . . 85 * Genus VIRAGO 95 No. 263. Green-headed Teal, Virago castanea ... 97 Plate 211 lettered Nettion castaneum, to face . . . 97 ■* No. 264. Slender or Grey Teal, Virago gibherifrons rogersi . 102 Plate 212 lettered Nettion rogersi and Nettion castaneum, to face 102 r Genus QUERQUEDULA 114 No. 265. Eastern Garganey Teal, Querquedula querquedula humeralis 115 Genus SPATULA 117 No. 266. Eastern Shovelbr, Spatula clypeata indiana . . 118 No. 267. Australian Shoveler, Spatula rhynchotis rhyncJiotis . 120 Plate 213 lettered Spatula rhynchotis, to face . . . 120 ^ VI. CONTENTS. PAGE Genus MALACORHYNCHUS 123 No. 268. PmK-EARED Duck, Malacorhynchus memhraTiaceus . 124 Plate 214 lettered Malacorhynchus assimilis, to face . . 124 * Genus STICTONETTA 128 No. 269. Freckled Duck, Stictonetta ncevosa . . . .129 Plate 215 lettered Stictonetta branda, to face . . . 129 ’ Genus NYROCA .......... 131 No. 270. White-eyed Duck, Nyroca australis .... 133 Plate 216 lettered Nyroca australis^ to face . . . . 133 * Genus ERISMATURA 136 No. 271. Blue-billed Duck, Erismatura australis . . . 138 Plate 217 lettered Oxyura australis, to face .... 138 , Genus BIZIURA 141 No. 272. Western Musk Duck, Biziura lohata lobata . . 143 Plate 218 lettered Biziura westralis, to face . . . 143 . No. 273. Eastern Musk Duck, Biziura lobata menziesi . . 147 Order PELECANIFORMES 152 Genus PHALACROCORAX 161 No. 274. Black Cormorant, Phalacrocorax carbo novmhollandioe 164 Plate 219 lettered Garbo novcehollandice, to face . ’ Genus MESOCARBO 173 No. 275. Little Black Cormorant, Mesocarbo ater ater . . 174 Plate 220 lettered Carbo sulcirostris, to face . . . 174 . Genus HYPOLEUCUS I77 No. 276. White-breasted Cormorant, Hypoleucus fuscescens . 179 Plate 221 lettered Carbo gouldi, to face . . . . 179 , No. 277. Pied Cormorant, Hypoleucus varius perthi . . .184 Plate 222 lettered Garbo hypoleucos, to face . . . 184 , Vll. THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. PAGE Genus MICROCARBO 188 No. 278. Little Cormorant, Microcarbo melanoleucus melano- l^ucus 189 Plate 223, lettered Carbo melanoleucos, to face . . .189 Genus ANHINGA . . . 193 No. 279. Darter, Anhinga novcEhollandicB .... 195 Plate 224 lettered Plotus novcehoUandice, to face . . .195 Genus PISCATPIX I99 No. 280. Australian Ped-legged Gannet, Piscatrix sula rubripes 210 Plate 225 lettered Sula rubripes, to face .... 210 Genus SULITA 217 No. 281. Australian Gannet, Sulita serrator dyotti . . . 219 Plate 226 lettered Sula serrator, to face .... 219 Genus PAPASULA 225 No. 282. Australian Masked Gannet, Parasula dactylatra personata 226 Plate 227 lettered Sula personata, to face .... 226 Genus SULA 230 No. 283. Australian Brown Gannet (Booby), Sula leucogaster V^otus . 231 Plate 228 lettered Sula leucogaster, to face . . . .231 Genus FPEGATA 236 No. 284. Greater Frigate Bird, Fregata minor listeri . . 240 Plate 229 lettered Fregata palmerstoni, to face . . . 240 No. 285. Eastern Lesser Frigate Bird, Fregata ariel ariel . 282 No. 286. Western Lesser Frigate Bird, Fregata ariel tunnyi . 288 Plate 230 lettered Fregata ariel, to face .... 288 Genus SC.EOPH^THON . 291 No. 287. PuDDY Tropic Bird, Scceophcethon rubricauda novae- hollandim 295 No. 288. Westralian Ped-tailed Tropic Bird, ScoeopJioethon rubricauda westralis . . . . ' . . . . 304 Plate 231 lettered Phcethon westralis, to face . . . 304 vm. CONTENTS. BASE Genus LEPTOPH^THON 306 No. 289. White-tailed Tropic Bird, Leptophcethon Upturns d/oroihem .......... 307 Plate 232 lettered PJicethon doroihose. to face , . . 307 '' "S Genus CATOPTROPELICANUS 312 No. 290. Australian Pelican, GaUptropelicanus conspicillatus , 314 Plate 233 lettered PeUcanus conspicillatus^ to face . . 314 ' PREFACE T he completion of my fourth volume calls for little comment, but I appreciate the slow and steady progress made in ornithological study since I commenced mv work. t/ Since my third volume was finished, I have visited Australia and made the personal acquaintance of my numerous valued correspondents, previously known by letters and gifts only. It would be superfluous to enlarge upon the pleasme which such meetings gave me, and I feel that the previous good feeling has been strengthened by the personal communication. I cannot thank each ornithologist in this place for his welcome, as it would practically mean a recognition of all the members of the Royal Australasian Ornithologists’ Union, but I must put on record my appreciation of the kindnesses I met with over the whole of Australia and the fact that the interchange of ideas with many of my apparent opponents was marked with the greatest of courtesy, and I am certain we have aU benefited by the intercourse. Consequently the sentiments expressed in the preface to the last volume, as regards the help I received from local workers, must now be emphasized as from personal friends. I there suggested that the “ tiresome ” matter of nomenclature was reaching an easy conclusion and I am pleased to confirm this statement, as since my visit prominent Australian ornithologists such as Mr. A. H. Mattingley, the President of the Union, and Mr. H. L. White have communica\;ed views confirming my own conclusions, which were only those of the extra-Australian scientific world. I now anticipate a comparatively speedy result in the usage of a uniform nomenclature. The ultra-conservative Committee of the British Ornithologists’ Union have published their List, and it is remarkable in that it professes to use a policy of “ Nomina Conservanda,” but was only able to suggest 13 out of 475 as worthy of such consideration. A semi-policy of binomial usage as against trinomials was also proposed, with the result that it is already a proved failure, and a fully trinomial system will ere long be as universal in British avian nomenclature as it wiU be in that of Australia. XI THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. My friends, whose help I have repeatedly acknowledged, have all continued with notes and specimens and some new ones need recognition, such as Mr. H. C. Thompson of Tasmania, Mr. M. J. Colclough of Brisbane, and Dr. E. Dombrain of Sydney. Capt. S. A. White, Mr. H. L. White, Dr. Macghlivray, Mr. Tom Carter, and Mr. H. A. Purnell have again placed me under special obligation for their invaluable aid with regard both to specimens and observations, but it is almost an invidious task to specially mention any when all the Australian ornithologists, such as Messrs. Ashby, HiU, Howe, Tregellas and Wilson, etc., etc., were so generous in their efforts to aid and assist me in every way. Foulis Court, Fair Oak, Hants. Juney 1915 . G. M. M. Oedee— ANSEKIFOEMES. The birds constituting this Order comprise a homogeneous assemblage of swimming birds with webbed feet, peculiar, usually broad, more or less flattened biUs, provided with lamellae on the edges of the mandibles and a more or less prominent nail. They vary in size from very large birds with very long necks to rather small birds with short necks, but are always recognisable as referable to this Order at first sight. Every gradation between these extremes seems to persist so that a good scheme of classification is difficult to produce. Scarcely two birds exactly agree as to structural details and similar schemes of coloration, so that almost every bird has at some time or other been given a generic name. In a few cases the coloration has been retained, though great variation in the hard parts has taken place, while in others, birds showing opposite styles of coloration seem to possess the same structural characters. Sundevall in the Tentamm^ 1873 (c/. Nicholson’s Translation^ 1889, p. 239), neatly summarised the position thus : “ The six divisions here put forward, marked a-/, if one looks at the typical genera, are very distinct, and differ not less than the families of the CicJilomorphcB or Mellisugce, but they scarcely differ at all in general aspect, and on all sides are connected by intermediate genera : wherefore in the order of Swimming- birds, where the families are generally to be distinguished by weU-defined characters, these seem rather to be united into one family. But their form, in this cohort so much and so conspicuously varies, if we try to divide them up, not only facilitates a division into many genera, but almost renders it a necessitv.” To emphasise this point, Sundevall calls his groups a-f Sub\^amily as well as generic names, thus, “ Anserince or the genus A?^ser,” and indicates the divisions which should be considered as Genera or Subgenera. In view of recent attempts at the classification of these bhds, Sundevall’s comments in a few cases may be noted. Thus of Spatula he wrote : “ With the bill much longer than the head, more widened towards the tip. Otherwise the species are formed and coloured like the true Ducks, from which they are scarcely separable.” Of Cosmonetta {—Histrionicus ) : “ Entirely of the form of the following, {Clangula) except for the larger dertrum, the slightly longer tail, which is pointed, and the smoother head. A genus distinct more on account of its colour than its form.” These VOL. rv. 1 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. two genera have since been admitted by genus-lumpers, though greater differences are observed in the species they have lumped in other cases in the one genus. In this work I admit two genera which were not accepted in the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVII., the latest mono- graphic account of this Order. It is noteworthy that Sundevall practically recognised these, a fact quite unknown to me when I reinstated the genera from a practical examination of the birds themselves : thus Sundevall stated : “ Casarca ! Eyton {rutila Pall.) scarcely differs (from Ghenalopex mgyptiaca). Eadjah ! Rbch. {A. radjak Garn. Coqu. t. 49) differs a little in the bill being broader in front, and the nostrOs situated near the base.” “ Leptotarsis Gould (eytoni) differs in its sharp tail-feathers, which are a little longer (than those of Dendrocycna)^ When separating Aristonetta and Nyroca from Fuligula, Sundevall apologised : “ We do not consider the divisions propounded to be truly generic.” Such statements clearly show the peculiar modifications existing in the group which prohibit the usage of any well-defined groups unless such be of the most restricted character. In Baird, Brewer and Ridgway’s “ Water Birds of North America ” {Mem. Mils. Comp. Zool. (Harv.), Vol. XII., 1884), this group receives severely scientific handling, and as the result practically monotypic genera are utilised. Careful detailed diagnoses of the genera occurring in the Northern Hemisphere are given, and in every case though the basis is structure, full value is given to coloration. Probably part of this was due to the influence of Stejneger, as this brilliant worker’s “ Outlines of a Monograph of the Cygninm ” was practically utilised without alteration. They write (p. 419) : “ The species, being very numerous, naturally fall into several more or less well-defined groups, which have been accorded the rank of subfamilies. These, however, grade so insensibly into one another, that it is extremely doubtful whether this rank can be maintained for them,” and quote Stejneger’s conclusion : “ The whole family Anatidm forms, as to structural features, a very homogeneous group, and intermediate links are ever3rwhere to be found.” The minute subdivision prepared by Band, Brewer and Ridgway has acted as a guide to most workers on this group ever since. Otherwise if it be conceded that aU the work has been done independently, then the group could be cited as a champion for the genus splitters. It maj^ be that its difficulty, through the variation in colour and form, has entailed more careful study than some other groups, and the consequent diligent 2 ANSERIFOEMES. application to tlie varied forms has converted the workers to the same ideas as the genus-splitters. Whatever the speculation, the notable result is the almost universal admission of restricted genera in this group. An interpellation of a summary by Stejneger {Stand. Nat. Hist., 1885, p. 136) may precede more serious criticism : “ It is needless here to enlarge upon the characters peculiar to the Anatoidece (his name for the Anseri- formes of this work) or duck-tribe, in its widest sense. It is one of the best circumscribed superfamilies of recent birds, and its distinguishing characters so well-marked externally, that nobody fails to recognise any member at an instant, be it a swan, a goose, a duck, or a merganser, and most of the systematic names invented for the group, as Lamellirostres, etc., have been invented from the soft-skinned bill with the curious lamellar teeth. Most of the species take their food under water, and when the head is raised, the water runs out between the lamellae, which act like a sieve in retaining the food, which led to the invention of the English word ‘ sifters,’ as an equivalent of Lamellirostres. In some forms the lameUse are shortened and thickened so as to enable them to act as teeth in nipping off grass, as for instance, in the geese, while in the mergansers they are modified into retrorse hooks, which serve to prevent the slimy fish from slipping away.” The latest monograph of the Order is that by Salvadori in the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVII., 1895, and this is noteworthy in that though it is the work of a genus-splitter it has been almost universally accepted. It is a pity that no generic diagnoses are given, and it is necessary to study the Keys provided to understand the features Salvadori based his genera upon. It is obvious throughout from a study of these that Salvadori utilised coloration as of great importance, in some cases subordinating differences in structure to similarity of coloration. Thus for the genus (Edemia the “ generic ” diagnosis given by ^Salvador! reads : “ General plumage of males deep black, of the femalek greyish- brown, but not barred.” This is so framed as the species thus associated show the same general coloration, though the bill shows great variation, much more than is accepted as the basis of generic separation by Salvadori when such alteration is accompanied by colour-change. Then in the case of the “ genera ” Nettion and Querquedula no other separative characters are urged than that the former falls into a section with the “ Upper wing-coverts not blue, but of a more or less dark grey,” while the latter has the “ Upper wing-coverts blue or bluish-grey.” The structural characters as well as coloration in the typical species of these two genera differ very 3 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. slightly , but in N cttion S&l vadori included the birds I seps/fftte under Virago, which to my eyes differ appreciably from either Nettion or Qtierquedula. In the American Ornithologist’s Union’s ChecJdist, 3rd ed., 1910, as a general rule Salvadori’s genera are maintained, in some instances subgenera, which Salvadori did not recognise, being introduced, while in others the genera Salvadori admitted have been reduced to subgenera. Thus in the genus (Edemia (which the Americans correctly quote as Oidemia) the same association of black Diving Ducks is included, but the structural differences are indicated by the admission of subgenera. Inconsistencies are not however dismissed by these means, as NeMion and Querquediila are considered generically distinct, though the observed differences in structure are less than in the subgenera of Oidemia, while the coloration differs just as little. It is interesting to note that the Americans have reduced Nyroca to a subgenus, and by including with it as subgenera only Aristonetta and Fuligula (under the incorrect name Marila) under one genus Marila (recte Nyroca if the association be admitted) have endorsed Sundevall’s dictum quoted above of nearly forty years previously. Shufeldt {Emu, VoL XII., p. 209 et seq., 1913) adds a subfamily Dendrocygnince which, could be easily admitted, but does not otherwise alter Salvadori’s grouping. I propose to glance at this grouping in connection with a sketch of the forms of Australia, In this group the peculiar evolution of genera seen in the case of the Charadriiformes, but in that Order masked so that study only recognised their aberrant nature, becomes so marked that it is palpable to the superficial observer. Salvadori, as most other workers, makes the Sub-Order here given ordinal rank co-equal with the family Anatidce, but divides that into eleven subfamilies, viz., Cygnince, Anseranatince, Plectropterince, Cereopsince, AnserincB, Chenonettinoe, Anatince, Fuligulince, Erismaturinoe, Merganettinm and Mergince. Eight of these are represented in Australia, two of them being formed to cover monotypic Australian genera. The peculiar features of the Australian Anseriform birds will be best appreciated by a review of these subfamilies. The subfamily Cygnince consists of very large birds with very long necks and a normal hind toe not bearing a lobe. The coloration of the birds is usually pure white, a South American species having the head and neck black. One Australian bird is referable to this subfamilv, and it stands out inasmuch as its coloration is all dark save the white primaries. The genus CJienopis used for it mainly depends upon this extraordinary difference in coloration. 4 ANSERIFOEMES. The subfamily Anseranatinm includes the extraordinary Australian genus Anseranas alone ; this bird is of large size nearly approaching the Cygnince, but has the neck not so long. It has a huge knob on the head and from the base of the culmen to beyond the eyes and the frontal portion of this knob the adult is bare of feathers, giving the bird a rather displeasing appearance. Its legs and feet are, however, more wonderful still, as the former are very long and stout while the toes are long and only half»webbed, and a very long hind toe completes the wonder. Stejneger contrasted it with the majority of Ducks and Geese with Family rank. The subfamily Plectropterhm was formed to include a number of abnormal forms, neither Ducks nor Geese, the Australian representatives being two birds classed in the genus Cheniscus. This genus consists of very small birds having the apparent structure of large Geese, but vividly colored, which Geese are not. One of the Australian birds is simply an outlier of an Indian species, but the other is a peculiar species confined to Australia. A remarkable fact is that in the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum another species, Nettapus auritus (Boddaert), an African form, is associated with these two, and the three species constitute a remarkable little group called Pygmy Geese, or by the Australians, Goose- Teal. Thus of the three species only one occurs in Africa, only one in Asia, yet two are habitants of Australia. The subfamily CereopsincE once more individualises the Anseres of Australia, as this subfamily only contains the monotypic genus Cereopsis, confined to Southern Australia and which closely resembles no other Goose. Shufeldt, who has lately investigated the anatomy of this peculiar Goose, concludes that apart from the characters of the skull it differs little from other Geese, but the skull is so different that subfamily rank must be accorded it. The peculiar cere-bearing bill, and the very strong legs and feet distinguish the form at sight. \ The subfamily CJienonettince was introduced to include a number of birds somewhat duck-like in aspect, with a bill formed after the manner of geese. The subfamily seems ill-constituted, the inclusion of the genus Cyanochen calling for reconsideration upon geographical grounds alone, while it seems possible that Chenonetta would bear divorce from Chloephaga. The last-named genus contains six species confined to southern South America and the Falkland Islands, while Chenonetta is another of the peculiar isolated Australian Anserine forms. A quick idea of its pecu- liarities can be formed by the vernacular names under which it is known, viz., Wood-Duck or Maned-Goose. I anticipate that anatomical research 5 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. will enable the fixation of the systematic position of these birds, but I note that Shufeldt, while comparing the anatomy of Cereopsis novcB- hollandicB with that of species of Chloeophagay does not lay much stress upon the relationship of the latter with Chenonetta, though he had bones supposed to belong to this genus before him. The subfamily AnatincB is divided by Salvadori into nineteen genera, of which nine include species of birds attributed to Australia. The first, Dendrocygna, covers the Tree-Ducks, which differ from all the rest of the Anatine genera in having the metatarsus reticulated throughout, while the others have a row of scutes in front. They differ superficially in other respects, and Shufeldt, having anatomically examined the species, has separated them into a distinct subfamily, Dendrocygninoe. This group has an extraordinary discontinuous distribution, and here again, while one of the species inhabiting Australia (there are two only) is simply a form of an Asiatic species, the other is peculiar to Australia, and is so well characterised that I have admitted it to be generically distinct. These Tree-Ducks are recognisable by their long necks and long legs with the exposed tibia. Salvadori included the species Anas mdjaJi in the genus Tadorna^ but this bird differs appreciably in form from the monotype of Tadorna, and I have admitted Reichenbach’s genus Radjah for it. This beautiful bird is confined to the Moluccas, Papuan Islands, and Northern Australia, the Australian breeding birds forming a well-marked subspecies. In the genus Casarca, proposed for the Ruddy Sheldrake of Europe, the finest Australian Duck is placed, and here, though a variation in coloration is seen from the type, the differences in coloration throughout the genus seem to be gradual, and such as one would anticipate might occur in a natural genus. There is no sudden colour change. In the genus Anas occurs the commonest Australian Duck, which very closely agrees with the common European Wild Duck, save that it never puts on a special winter plumage in the case of the male, but that sex is content all the year round with the sombre dress which in Europe is utilised for a short while only in summer, but which the female continuously wears. In structure throughout, the European and Australian birds accurately agree. In the genus Nettion Salvadori placed the Mareca castanea of Eyton, for which upon an anatomical peculiarity Newton had introduced the genus Virago. The species differs in colour and form from the type of Nettion much more than does the genus Querquedula which Salvadori admitted, and I have therefore reinstated Newton’s genus Virago. Two 6 ANSERIFOEMES. species are here admitted as referable to this genus, but once more, an extraordinary problem in evolution presents itself. Thus, the two species have been confounded by every writer and my own decision with regard to them is open to argument. The commonest species ranges throughout Australia and the islands to the North and East and is considered to be uniform in coloration at all growth stages, seasonal changes and sexual forms. The other has been concluded to differ in that the male takes on a handsome plumage at a certain age and continues this throughout life afterward : this species is confined to Australia, south of the Tropics, and Tasmania. The female of this species was supposed to differ in no way whatever from the male of the preceding. I have suggested that in the second species both male and female put on the brilliant plumage coloration, but I have not been able to indicate how the immature of this form differs from the mature of the other. A straggler allotted to the northern genus Querquediila has been admitted to the Australian List, but whether it should be included as an Australian bird is a doubtful point. I am dubious and would refuse it recognition without further confirmation. The genus Spatula has a typical representative in Australia, while Gould included the northern bird as a straggler, but his specimen was lost and none have since been procured. The New Zealand Shoveller was recorded by North, but as I consider the New Zealand bird only sub-specifically distinct I also conclude that North’s bird was simply a well-marked individual of the Australian race. This genus is charac- terised by the very long spoon-shaped bill, longer than the head ; other- wise, as Sundevall points out, it is a normal Anatine bird. Another of the extraordinary Australian Anatine birds is represented by the monotypic genus Malacorhynchus. The name indicates the peculiar feature. The bill is long and spoon-shaped, as in the preceding, but is in addition provided on the sides with a prominent soft membrane. I consider that this bird has no direct relationship with the genus Spatula, and that the similarity in form of the bills in the two genera is due to coincidence, or as it is generally termed, convergence in evolution. A quaint feature in the coloration of the bird is the pink spot behind the eye, whence the vernacular name Pink-eared Duck. The last member of the subfamily Anatinm adds another to the list of Australian Duck wonders, for of the genus Stictonetta Salvador! comments : “ Systematic position very uncertain.” The genus is mono- t3rpic and its distribution is southern Australia. In structure it is not closely 7 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. allied to any other genus, while its coloration is remarkable, the vernacular name, Freckled Duck, well describing it. The subfamily FuligulincB^ or Diving Ducks, is represented by one member only in Australia, a species of the northern genus Nyroca^ and which is so closely allied that at one time I only considered it subspecific- ally distinct from the European type of the genus. The ErismaturincB, a group of specialised Diving Ducks, with a peculiar geographical distribution, are characterised by their narrow and stiff tail feathers. Two peculiar Australian Ducks were included by Salvador! in this subfamily, one of which is closely allied to the typical genus Oxyura (=ETis7tiatura), but the other, Biziura, is an extraordinary form which I suggest anatomical investigation will separate into a distinct subfamily, as its superficial features indicate no clear alliance save in the structure of the tail feathers with the other members of the EfisindtufincB. The peculiar lobe under the bill, the diverse sizes of the sexes and the coloration make this form unmistakable, and Ey ton’s anatomical notes only need confirmation to sanction its absolute divorce from the Eris7naturin€e while real taxonomic position may be demonstrated. With our present knowledge the evolution of these peculiar Australian AnatidcB cannot be traced, though a summary of the family may be acceptable. Twenty-one species and subspecies are here treated of, but two are quite doubtful constituents of the Australian avifauna. In the remaining twenty forms, seventeen genera are recognised, eight of which are endemic and monotypic. Of the other nine genera, four are confined to the near north of Australia, five having representatives in the far north, e.g., Europe. A complication as to geography may be here noted. Salvador! admitted the subdivision of the Family into eleven subfamilies, eight of which are represented in Australia. Of the three not occurring, members of the New Zealand avifauna are relegated to two, while only one member of the Fuligulince occurs there as in Australia, but that is referred to a different genus. Yet in New Zealand fossil deposits bones have been commonly found which have been even referred to these endemic Australian genera, in some cases specific distinction being not admitted. There would therefore be good grounds for supposing that these peculiar Australian genera — viz., Ghenopis, Anseranas, Cereopsis, Chenonetta, Stictonetta, and Bizium were of Antarctic origin. In the Introduction of my List of the Birds of Australia, p. xxi., 1913, I com- mented upon this apparent Antarctic element in the Australian avifauna, citing as probable examples the genera Tribonyx and Cereopsis. The 8 ANSERIFORMES. reviewer in the Ihis 1914, pp. 147-149, noticed this and wrote : “ In another section of the Introduction the zoogeographical relations of Australian birds are discussed. Mr. Mathews draws attention to what he believes to be an Antarctic element in the avifauna, and instances such genera as Trihonyx and Cereopsis as having an Antarctic origin. To prove this, however, it is necessary to postulate considerable changes in the distribution of land and water, and great alterations of climate in tertiary times, and at present there seems to be hardly enough evidence of this. There seems to be no reason to reject the hypo- thesis that the Australian avifauna originally reached the continent from the north, but at so long a period ago that it has become profoundly modified.” I would simply note that the hypothesis that the Australian Fauna, considered as a whole, originally reached the continent from the north has been rejected by nearly every recent worker in other branches of science as being quite unable to explain the connections of the South American, New Zealand, and Australian genera and species. Our know- ledge of Australian avian anatomy is so imperfect that we cannot yet prove exact relationships, but all the available evidence points to Antarctica as a stepping-stone between the three above-named places, though probably not a centre of evolution, a result arrived at by other investigators in other branches. This is just a note by the way, as I hope to make further contributions to the subject when I will simply work to the facts, as I am quite unprejudiced with regard to either theory. I have stated that though the Australian Charadriifor7nes show a marked endemic element, in every case I should at present consider the birds to have had a northern origin. In the case of the Australian Anserijonnes I do not consider such a statement can be made, and therefore some other solution of the endemism must be sought. VOL. IV. 9 Genus— C H E N 0 P I S . Chenopis Wagler, Isis 1832, p. 1234 Type C. atrata. Also spelt — Ghenopais Reichenbach, Nat. Syst. Vogel., p. x., 1862. Cygnine birds of dark coloration with medium bill, very long neck, long wings, very short tail, short legs, and long toes fully webbed. The bill is longer than the head and about three-fourths the length of the metatarsus ; it is of medium height at the base, swollen at this place but rapidly becoming depressed towards the tip, which overhangs the under mandible ; nail not prominent. Obsolete lamellae can be noted only along the central portion of the sides of the upper mandible, being altogether lacking towards the base and the tip. Nostrils small ovals, somewhat diagonally placed near base of bill but high up on sides of upper mandible. Under mandible broad and flat ; strong serrations on each edge corresponding with the obsolete lamellae of upper mandible. Rami broad and flattened, enclosing a long narrow unfeathered groove which extends almost entire length of lower mandible, only a small flattened ungrooved tip being present. The wings are long, the second primary longest. The tail, composed of twenty- two feathers, is square and is less than one-fourth the length of the wing and little more than the metatarsal length. The metatarsus is short, stout and covered throughout with very small reticulate scales. The toes are long, exceeding the metatarsus in length and fully webbed ; a short hind toe is present, which is not lobed. This genus, which is commonly recognised, depends to a great extent upon coloration. In the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVII., 1895, Count Salvador! gives (p. 24) as the differential characters of the genus : “ Tertials and scapulars crisp ; predominant colour black.” The latest review of the swans I have noted is that by Oberholser in the Emu, Vol. VIII., pp. 1-11, 1908. There the genus Chenopis is maintained, but the addition of “ Tail shorter than middle toe with claw ” is made to Salvadori’s diagnosis. The genus is monotypic as now existing and confined to Australia, where it becomes very uncommon towards the extreme north. .Fossil 10 CHENOPIS. bones have however been discovered in the neighbourhood of Lake Eyre which have been referred to this genus, but have been regarded as con- stituting a different smaller species. Further bones have been met with as fossils in New Zealand and the Chatham Islands, which have also been considered as belonging to the present genus, and moreover are differentiated as being specifically separable by their slightly larger size, but otherwise very similar. It is suggested that the New Zealand birds might have differed in coloration. 11 Order AN8EBIF0BME8 No. 252. Family ANATID^. CHENOPIS ATRATA. BLACK SWAN. (Plate 200.) Anas ateata Latham, Index Ornith., Vol. II,, p, 834, 1790 ; New South Wales. Black Swan (Lister), Philos. Trans. Lond., Vol. XX., p. 361, 1698 ; Phillip, Voy. Botany Bay, p. 98, 1789 ; Vancouver, Voy. Disc. North Pacific Ocean, Vol. I., pp. 38, 52, 1798; LabiUardiere, Voy. in Search of La Perouse, Engl, ed., Vol. I., p. 173, pi. ix., 1800 ; Latham, Gen. Synops. Suppl., Vol. II., p. 343, 1801 ; id., Gen. History Birds, Vol. X., p. 224, 1824. Anas atrata Latham, Index Ornith., Vol. II., p. 834, 1790 ; Ranzani, Elem. di Zool., Vol, III., pt. IX., p. 97, 1826 ; Yarrell, Trans. Linn. Soc. (Lond,), Vol, XV., p. 382, pi. xii. (trachea), 1827. Anser novcehollandice Bonnaterre, Tabl. Encyc, Meth. Ornith., Vol. I,, p. 108, 1791 (New South Wales). Anas plutonia Shaw and Nodder, Naturahsts’ Miscellany, Vol. III., pi. 108, 1792 (New South Wales) ; Lesson, Voy. Coquille, Vol. I., p. 400, 1826. Cygnus atratus VieiUot, Nouv. Diet. d’Hist. Nat., Vol, IX., p. 39, 1817 ; Dumont, Diet. Sci. Nat. (Levrault), Vol. XII,, p. 314, 1818 ; Stephens in Shaw’s Gen, Zool., Vol. XII., pt. n., p. 18, pi. 39, 1824; VieiUot, Galerie d’Oiseaux, Vol. II,, p. 215, pi. 286, 1825; Yarrell, Zool. Journ., Vol. IV., p. 321, 1828; Lesson, Manuel d’Orn., Vol, II., p. 407, 1828 ; id., Traite d’Orn., p. 629, pi. 48, fig. 1, 1831 ; Bennett, Gardens and Menag. Zool. Soo. Birds, p. 45, cum. fig., 1831 ; Heron, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.), 1835, p. 107 ; Lesson, Compl. de Buffon, Ois., Vol, IX., p. 529, 1837 ; Lesson, Revue Zool., 1839, p. 323 ; Ruppell, Mus. Senckenb., Vol. III., p. 9, 1839 ; Gray, Genera Birds, Vol. III., p. 610, 1844; Hartlaub, Syst. Verz. Ges. Mus., p. 118, 1844; Gould, Birds Austr., Vol. VIL, pi. 6, 1845 ; Stokes, Discov. in Austr., Vol. I., p, 482, 1846 ; Sturt, Narr. Exped. Centr. Austr,, Vol. II., App., p. 55, 1849 ; Reichenbach, Synops, Av. Natatores, pi. 105, figs. 251-252 ; pi. 107, fig. 2362, 1850 ; Lichtenstein, Nomencl. Av. Mus. Zool. Berol., p. 101, 1854; Sclater, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.), 1859, p. 206 ; Crisp, ib., p. 258, 1860 ; id., ib., 1862, p. 142 ; Bennett, Gath. Nat. Austral., p. 238, 1860 ; Schlegel, Mus, Pays-Bas, Anseres, Vol. VI., p. 80, 1866 ; Muller, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.), 1869, p. 280 ; Sclater, ib., p. 629 ; Gray, Handl. Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. III., p. 78, 1871 ; Giebel, Thes, Ornith., Vol. I., p. 855, 1872 ; Pelzeln, Ibis 1873, p. 46 ; Garrod, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.), 1875, p. 348 ; Gulliver, ib., p. 488 ; 12 4 liSfelil; t^r" ■' ^•'j.- W -P- c&rhiM v^v<;^ 4 '^" ': ' r ■ _ **► 4 • !*• V.’ V.;-' ■■■ .>-',\w J- ■ .v v - . ■' » ' ■ ' 5 (&‘ % '^-'' jm', ’ -'A^''r^!ri'. > ■ "'TS-iU -■' " *- /■•■ .* • '■ . *' fr •? ^...tj ji.ia ■ii " ■'Oi-. ’ '\ -V - ■ . ".v ■"’ ■ -r^ ■■'*j.- ■ ■ . -..\ 4 . ■ .■■■ •' •' .: .I ' ' ' It* - '• .1 ’ , f.t«.',’ .-i./V -s . ‘ ' ■" ;,. 'Ni- - '"• ' ''•■y;,^V '- :-4 • '■ - . . _ , . ‘v- Lxv vv. -' ■ ' C *r * ».■ ? ./•.n IT — ’ *i I ..If / ®J 1 l' to:' r ^ .. .. ^ •‘»’r i ^ r.' ” it- 1 SE , i.J i * ^ f. <4- ./■'f ■' F» ,■ • ‘ - A ’W i' •■ M ;i ■- •- r- T,i.' Pv ■'■■,- *: »■-. ',£.i » •: j I STr^’- ■■ a ' .'■ . ;■■■• . . ■ 4 'f' V , '.5. • ' ' f V. ‘»',fc y. ■■ .■ XV- '■ V ';' 4 ^ /■ -. V . ji'y- .- ' ,,• ^ I ^• . ..tt ‘*v' f'M" , . . • t. > ' •. '^.^ . ♦> ,v . •■ ^ ■ . ' y .. .' • V ? -'•-x:r tV 1 .- 1 1> 1 .- .,v ,r ,. " * i'' • lit.. '' :V., ?l. \ yV ,s . ."t ' if ' ' " ■ 4 J. C ' -i #■ ■' r <• T -r -* . ' .♦ ■.'.••< ’I ■ ^ 4 Vi • ' , i' . •« 'r ' ■ ' -. . .r . .' } y-' s'., V:*' "• -(: ; 'I'.t-- ■' X'V''Vv|-.VV^^ '■ " '-jV y®" ;* ■^. * T :, '' 'A:i':/'- ■ y:g •iir. ■> " ■■' ': 4 ' -f. »ll ,. S--^ J " , n' tC? I ; ^ ■■<■ . :•. •.■■• / V- V liVyT. ',v:..-.:,ii, ' "■ '■ Mi2:.' - ;te?wii£j ’-V. WHISTLING BUCK. Dendrocygna javanica peroni Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 86, 1912 ; Fitzroy Rher, North-west Australia. Distribution. North-west Australia ; Northern Territory ; Queensland ; New South Wales ; Victoria. Adult male. Back and scapulars black, the feathers margined with chestnut ; lesser upper wing-coverts bright chestnut ; median and greater coverts black, some of which are margined with chestnut on the inner webs ; bastard-wing, primary-coverts and quills uniform black ; crown of head and a narrow line down the hind-neck dark brown ; sides of the face, throat, and sides of neck pale rufous ; lower hind- neck and fore-neck rufous barred with black ; abdomen and sides of body uniform chestnut, the long flank feathers margined with black and fringed with rufous, or chestnut, on the inner web ; vent and under tail-coverts buffy-white, the former streaked with brown ; axillaries and under wing-coverts dark brown ; lower back, rump, and upper tail-coverts black ; sides of the rump and some of the small upper tail-coverts bufly -white. Bill black ; iris brown ; tarsi and feet leaden brown. Total length 470 mm. ; culmen 47, wing 210, tail 54, tarsus 51. Ad^dt female. Similar to the adult male. Immature. Differs chiefly by its dull white throat, paler breast and lower hind-neck, the white on the sides of the rump, and the white under tail-coverts. Flapper. Darker above with the edges of the feathers deep buff and lacks the barred appearance on the lower hind-neck ; lower fore-neck uniform rufous brown ; sides of the breast rufescent ; middle and abdomen with feathers with white centres. Nest. Placed in the grass, without lining. Eggs. Clutch, 10 to 15 ; creamy-white, rather like those of the former, slightly glossy and pointed at both ends. Axis 51 mm., diameter 35. Breeding-season. February, March, May, November (North). The life-history of this bird, as that of almost every other Australian Duck, is practically unknown. Mr. J. P. Rogers notes result as recorded in the lUs 1914, p. 107 : “ A few were seen (at Melville Island) from October to December. On the 10th of January, 1912, a large flock passed over.” I make this remark as the reviewers have pointed out that through an extraordinary oversight I omitted to record that the collection reported upon in that paper was made by Mr. J. P. Rogers, and that all the field notes there printed were from his pen. \ So little has been made known of the habits of this species that it is necessary to reproduce Gould’s account prepared from Gilbert’s notes: “During the months of September, October, November and December, the IVhistling Duck assembles in vast flocks on the lakes around the settlement at Port Essington ; the lagoons and water at that season of the year are so shallow, that this and many other species of the Duck tribe are enabled to wade among the herbage and procure an abundant supply of food. Gilbert states that, on the approach of man or the report of a gun, this and the other species in company with it rise altogether, but that each species separates itself into a distinct flock during the act of rising. While 63 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA, on the water it is quite silent, emitting no kind of noise ; but all the time it is on the wing it gives utterance to a peculiar whistle. The stomach is extremely muscular, and the food consists of small fish and aquatic plants.” A word of warning must be given with regard to the vernacular name of this Duck : it is now universally known as Whistling Duck, but the earlier investigators apparently applied that name to other species. This species was not known from Australia until after 1830, so that I noted with surprise that Sharpe {Hist. Coll. Nat. Hist. Brit. Miis.^ Vol. II., p. 244, 1906) wrote that on the twenty-fifth day’s sale of the Bullock Collection, the 10th June, 1819, Lot 3 was The Whistling Duck of New Holland, and this was purchased bv Professor Temminck for £1. My surprise deepened when referring to the Trans. Linn. Soc. (Lond.), Vol. IV., p. 103, 1798, where Latham described Anas semipahnata. I observed that of this bird Latham wrote : “ It was observed sometimes to perch on trees, in the manner of the Whistling Duck.^’ If this note referred to this species this would be the earliest record of its occurrence in Australia, but a clue was given to a complication by the note of Sturt’s {Narr. Exped. Centr. A^istr., Vol. II., App., p. 56, 1849) where he wrote of Malacorhynchus memhranaceus : “ It is very common on most of the Australian creeks and streams and is called the Whistling Duck.” As, however, the little Pink-eared Duck is not famed, as far as I know, for perching on trees, we cannot with certainty attach Latham’s note to this bird. It is probable that still other species of Ducks were known as WJiistling Ducks to the earliest settlers. Berney notes {Emu, Vol. VI., p. 156, 1907) of North Queensland : “ A rare visitant, of whose visits I have only three records — February, June and December. Doubtless it is at times overlooked, and put down as D. eytoni, but it is undoubtedly rare.” Hall {Emu, Vol. IX., p. 78, 1909) writing of Victoria, states : “ Evidently a rare species in this locality, for during the last 8 or 9 years only one flock has been seen (50 birds). About thirty years ago they were numerous, and it was a common sight to find them camped upon the dead limbs of the red gum-trees. This is a very quiet Duck.” Mr. G. A. Keartland (North, Austr. Mus. Spec. Gat., no. 1, Vol. IV., p. 67, 1913) says : “ Across the northern portion of Australia, Whistling Ducks {Dendrocygna arcuata) are usually plentiful. During the night they fly inland on the MitcheU-grass or Flinders-grass Plains and feed, but towards daybreak they frequent the rivers or lagoons for a bathe or drink, and then 64 WHISTLING DUCK. cluster on the shady side of any thick bushes to sleep through the day, only moving when disturbed or to escape the sun. When the Calvert Exploring Expedition was approaching the Eitzroy River in North-western Australia, we disturbed thousands of these birds from the plains, and whilst camped near the river had no difficulty in shooting as many as were wanted. On approaching any water, a brown patch on the shady side of a tree or bush invariably proved to be a number of these birds sleeping. They generally permitted us to approach within thirty or forty yards before they moved, and then they stood up and gathered as close as possible together, with bodies and heads erect, so that by taking a [shot amongst their necks one cartridge always secured enough to feed our party. Thejr are long narrow birds, as long from bill to feet as a Black Duck, but as narrow as a Teal. Being grass feeders their flesh is excellent. They breed in great numbers amongst the spinifex or coarse grass.” Mr. George Barnard {id,, ib.) added : “ Coming home with cattle on the 25th May, 1890, my sons flushed a Duck of some sort off a nest in the grass too hurriedly to see what it was : they left it till next day, when one of them rode out to identify the species ; it proved to be a ‘ Whistler ’ {Dendrocygna vagans). The nest was made in the grass, and without any lining of feathers or down, and contained fifteen eggs in an early stage of incubation, several of which he took. This Duck is very common in the neighbourhood, and is found frequenting the large swamps, but this is the first time we have obtained the nest. Two eggs from the above nest are elliptical in form, tapering somewhat sharply to each end, which are pointed and of equal size. They are of a pale creamy-white, and in the specimens forwarded have light reddish-purple markings on one end, appearing as if beneath the surface of the shell : these markings are abnormal, one specimen having only a few spots on one side. Length (A) 2.09 X 1.43 inches; (B) 2.13 X 1.42 inches.” Mr. Barnard explained: “ Nearly all the Whistling Ducks’ eggs taken had markings on one end, but most of those left in the nest were without them. I do not think the markings are typical, but only the effect of the season, as I have noticed the markings on butterflies and moths were darker and richer this past season than in ordinary ones.” Barnard handed the same note to Campbell and it appears in his Nests and Eggs (p. 1026), and Campbell’s description of the eggs is also drawn up from Barnard’s specimens. The rarity of nests of this bird can be gauged from the fact that both Campbell and North make the basis of their accounts the same clutch of eggs. VOL. IV. 65 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. In the Nov. Zool, Vol. XVIII., p. 9, 1911, I gave the following explanation for my preference to the name there used: “In the Cat. Birds, Vol. XXVII., p. 153, Salvador! preferred D. arcuata Horsfield, Zool. Res. in Java, pi. 65, 1824, for the Austro-Malayan species differentiated from D. javanica of the same author, previously proposed in the Trans. Linn. Soc. (Lend.), Vol. XIII., p. 199, 1822. Salvador! accepted arcuata on the plate given, but the letterpress covered javanica. The facts are : Horsfield proposed javanica and noted varieties, one of which agrees with the bird in question now considered specifically separable. In his second paper he used arcuata for the same group on account of its prior introduction by Cuvier in MS. only, and sank javanica as a synonym of the later arcuata. Of course, in reality arcuata is a pure synonym of javanica, the latter having priority. Count Salvador!, however, recognising that the figure given reaUy belonged to one of the varieties, used arcuata as based on that figure, though the text proved the contrary. This course is not permissible. As a substitute I have fallen back upon gouldi, which Gould accepted for the Australian bird as of Bonaparte. Bonaparte’s introduction {Gomptes Rendus, Vol. XLIII., p. 649, 1856) was of a nude name only, so that the above quotation is the first description. Two other prior names have been used for this bird, but each I consider inapplicable. Muller’s Anas badia {Verh. Nat. GescJi. Land en Volkmh, p. 159, 1842) is another nude name, whilst Fraser’s A. vagans was described from the Philippines {Zool. Typica, p. 68, 1849), and I am not inclined to accept it for the Australian form.” In my List Birds Austr., p. 89, published last year, I used the name Dendrocygna javanica gouldi as of Gould, 1865, considering its introduction by Bonaparte in 1856 as a nomen nudum. Upon further consideration I must replace it as above. The facts are as follows : In the Nov. Synops. Av., no. iv., Dec., 1850, Reichenbach named “ Tab. CCCXXXV. Novit. LXXII. LI^ 2650-51 Dendrocygna arcuata {australis) Gould B. of Austr., ic. Anas — Cuv.” On the Tab. quoted a reduced copy of Gould’s coloured plate is given. As on PI. Lamillirostres. Anatinse. LI. Dendrocygna. “ Figs. 171-72 arcuata Cuv. javanica Horse. Mus. Dresd.” are separately given, and the reduced coloured figures appreciably differ, there can be no other con- clusion save that Reichenbach named the Australian bird, as figured by Gould, subspecificaUy. Reichenbach’ s name has long priority and must therefore come into use and displace the subspecific gouldi whether this be admitted as of Bonaparte or Gould. The bird figured and described is a male collected at Parry’s Creek, North-west Australia, on the 18th February, 1909, by Mr. J. P. Rogers. 66 Genus— C T E N A N A S. Ctenanas Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. II., p. 90, 1914 . . Type L. eytoni, Leptotarsis Eyton, Monogr. Anatidae, pp. 29, 111, 1838, not Leptotarsus Guerin, 1831 . . . . . . . . . . Type L. eytoni. Also spelt — Leptotarsus Sehlegel, Mus. Pays-Bas, Vol. VI., Anseres, p. 87, 1866. Medium-sized Anatine birds with Anatine bill, long neck, long wings, long tail, very long legs and short toes. The bill is long, longer than the head, with the culmen ridge well defined, the sides of upper mandible somewhat depressed ; the small nostrils are placed high up on either side of culmen ridge near base of mandible. The edges of upper mandible bear obsolete serrations on their internal portion. The nail of the upper mandible is well defined and overhangs the under, but the tip is rounded, not pointed. The under mandible has a long spatulate tip ; the rami enclose an unfeathered triangular depression. The wing has the primary formula as in Dendrocygna. The tail is comparatively long with hard feathers ; it is about one-third the length of the wing and much longer than the metatarsus. The legs are long with long unfeathered tibia ; the metatarsus is reticulate throughout and is shorter than the tail, though noticeably longer than the middle toe without the claw. The toes are fully webbed ; the middle toe is less than the metatarsus but longer than the culmen. The hind toe is long and narrowly lobed. Order AN8ERIF0RME8 No. 259. Family ANATIDAS. CTENANAS EYTONI. PLUMED WHISTLING DUCK. (Plate 207.)* Leptotaesis EYTONI Eyton, Monogr. Anatidse, p. Ill, 1838 ; North-west Australia. Leptolarsis eytoni Eyton, Monogr. Anatidae, p. Ill, 1838 ; Gould, Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 15, 1845 ; Stokes, Discov. in Austr., Vol. I., pp. 419-420, App., p. 482, 1846 ; Leichhardt, Journ. Overl. Exped. Austr., pp. 289, 308, 423, 429, 474, 1847 ; Sturt, Narr. Exped. Centr. Austr., Vol. II., App., p. 57, 1849 ; Bonaparte, Comptes Bendus Sci. (Paris), Vol. XLIII., p. 649, 1856 ; Pelzeln, Novara Reise Vogel, p. 137, 1865 ; Eyton, Synops. Anatidae, p. 63, 1869 ; Mathews, List Birds Austr., p. 89, 1913 ; id., Ibis 1914, p. 108. Dendrocygna eytoni Gray, List Birds Brit. Mus., pt. m., p. 132, 1844 ; id., Genera Birds, Vol. III., p. 612, 1845 ; Reichenbach, Synops. Av. Natatores, pi. 99, figs. 2357-8, 1850 ; Sclater, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1864, p. 301 ; Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 375, 1865 ; Schlegel, Mus. Pays-Bas, Anseres, p. 87, 1866 ; Sclater, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1867, p. 686; Biggies, Birds Austr., Vol. II., pi. 114, fig. 1, 1870. Hutton, Cat. Birds New Zeal., pp. 35, 77, 1871 ; Finsch, Journ. fiir Orn., 1874, p. 201 ; Giebel, Thes. Ornith., Vol. II., p. 31, 1875 ; Sharpe, Zool. Erebus and Terror Birds, App., p. 31, 1875; Ramsay, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1877, p. 346; Castelnau and Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. I., p. 386, 1877; Reichenow, Orn. Centralbl., 1882, p. 23 ; Buller, Man. New Zeal. Birds, p. 67, 1882 ; Legge, Papers Proc. Roy. Soc. Tasm., 1886, p. 244, 1887 ; Buller, Hist. New Zeal. Birds, 2nd ed., Vol. II., p. 268, 1888 ; North, Aust. Mus. Cat., no. 12, p. 340, 1890 ; Hartert, Katal. Vogels Mus. Senckenb., p. 229, 1891 ; North, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. XXII., 1897, p. 60 ; Smith, Trans. New Zeal. Inst., Vol. XXIX., p. 255, 1897 ; North, Trans. Roy. Soc. South Austr., Vol. XXII., p. 190, 1898 ; id., Viet. Nat., Vol. XIX., p. 35, 1902 ; Le Souef, ib., p. 68 ; Hartert, Nov. Zool., Vol. XII., p. 205, 1905 ; Buller, Suppl. Birds New Zeal., Vol. II., p. 1, 1906 ; Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 35, 1908 ; id.. Emu, Vol. X., p. 106, 1910 ; id., Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 237, 1912 ; North, Austr. Mus. Spec. Cat., no. 1, Vol. IV., p. 68, 1913 ; Macgilhvray, Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 147, 1914. Dendrocygna versicolor Hartlaub, Erstr. Nachtr. Vogelsamml, p. 19, 1846 (nude name). * The Plate is lettered Dendrocygna eytoni. 68 c DENDROCYGNA EYTONI . (PLWMED WBI&TLING DUCK). PLUMED WHISTLING DUCK. Leptotarsis sp. Leichhardt, Journ. Overl. Exped. Austr., pp. 45, 287, 1847. Dendrocygna arcuata (nec Cuvier) Bennett, in Sclater Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lend.) 1866, p. 149. Dend/rocygna [Leptotarsis) eytoni Bennett, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Bond.) 1866, p. 418 ; Gray,. Handl, Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. in., p. 80, 1871. Dendrocygna [Leptotarsus) eytoni Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. I., p. 195, 1877 ; Vol. II., p. 200, 1877 ; id., Tab. List Austr. Birds, p. 22, 1888. Dendrocycna eytoni Sclater, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1880, p. 510 ; Reichenow, Vogel. Zool. Gart., p. 59, 1882 ; Tristram, Cat. CoU. Birds, p. 50, 1889 ; Salvador!, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVII., p. 165, 1895 ; HaU, Key Birds Austr., p. 107, 1899 ; Campbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 1027, 1901 ; Garter, Emu, Vol. III., p. 211, 1904; Hall, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 107, 1906; Ingram, Ibis 1907, p. 395 ; Berney, Emu, Vol. VI., p. 156, 1907 ; Littler, Handb. Birds Tasm.,, p. 218, 1910. Dendrocygna eytoni munna Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 86, 1912, Queensland ; Mathews and Iredale, Ibis 1913, p. 407. Distribution. Australia ; Tasmania (New Zealand). Adult male. Mantle, back, scapulars, and wings lead grey with pale margins to some of the short scapulars ; bastard- wing, primary-coverts, and quills dark brown, some of the secondaries slightly edged with white at the tips ; lower back, rump, and upper tail-coverts dark brown with paler edges to the feathers ; sides of rump yeUowish- buff margined with black as also the long upper tail-coverts, the latter broadly tipped with black ; tail uniform black ; crown of head and hind-neck pale rufous like the fore-neck and sides of neck, becoming bright chestnut on the sides of the breast and strongly barred with black, more faintly on the middle of the breast, where the ground-colour is buff ; chin and throat white, sides of face and lower throat grey ; the long narrow flank plumes buff, margined with black ; abdomen, thighs, and under tail-coverts white ; axillaries white, broadly edged with dark, brown ; under wing-coverts buffy-white barred with black. BiU, upper mandible black, mottled with flesh-colour, tip brown, bar flesh-colour, lower mandible flesh- colour ; eye and eye-lash yellow ; tarsi and feet flesh-colour. , Adult female. Similar to the adult male. Wing 233 mm. ; culmen 41, tail 70, tarsus 56. Nest. “ Similarly situated to that of the other Whistling Duck, upon the plains, in herbage, generally far from water. Has no down ” (Campbell). Eggs. “ Clutch, 10 to 12 probably ; roundish in form ; texture of shell fine ; surfaVje : glossy; colour, a light creamy outer-coating, on being removed reveals a fighter- coloured shell. Occasionally specimens are stained or minutely spotted with fight ; brown. Dimensions in inches : 1.88-1.97 x 1.4-1.56 ” (Campbell). Breeding-season. September, October, November ; February (Berney). I 4: The lack of observations with regard to the economics of this bird is again noticeable and most regrettable. It was recorded with great pleasure by the intrepid explorers of Central Australia, Stokes, Leichhardt and Sturt, all referring to it as one of the most numerous edible fowl of the Interior, ; and as contributing to their welfare many times. Leichhardt especially , makes notes of this, and particularly mentions the whistling flight. 69 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. Stokes’s notes reproduced by Gould are here again printed, as they have never been much augmented. “ Many of the reaches,” says Captain Stokes, when speaking of the river Adelaide of the north-western part of Australia, “ swarmed with wild-fowl, consisting almost wholly of ducks, which, from a habit of perching on the trees, have received the name of Wood Ducks. Their singularly long legs, with the web very much arched near the toes, gives great pliability to the foot and a power of grasping, which enables them to perch on trees. When on the wing they make a peculiar, pleasing, whistling sound, that can be heard at a great distance, and which changes as they alight into a sort of chatter. Their perching on trees is performed in a very clumsy manner, swinging and pitching to and fro. We sub- sequently often found them on the rivers of the north coast, but not within some miles of their mouths or near their upper waters, from which it would appear that they inhabit certain reaches of the rivers only : we never found them in swamps. The farthest south they were met with was on the Albert River, in the Gulf of Carpentaria, in lat. 18° S., which gives them a range of six and a half degrees of latitude over the northern part of the continent. These ducks are the Leptotarsis eytoni of Mr. Gould.” Sturt’s comments read : “ This new and fine bird was first shot on Strzelecki’s Creek by Mr. Browne, and was subsequently seen by me in considerable numbers on Cooper’s Creek. Its range was not to the west- ward, nor was it seen north of the Stony Desert. I believe I am wrong in stating that the first was killed at the place above-mentioned ; for, if my memory does not deceive me, we had already secured a specimen at the Depot. . . . Under ordinary circumstances, we might have fared well on this duck at Cooper’s Creek, but it was so wild as to keep out of our reach, being evidently hunted by the natives of the creek.” Leichhardt notes how the natives hunt this duck. Mr. Tom Carter states : “ This was a common species in the North- west, notably in the record wet year of 1900, when countless numbers were on the flooded flats east of Point Cloates. I shot many birds.” Mr. J. P. Rogers has written me that on March 14, 1902, he observed a female of this species with eleven young ones, associated with a duck of Anas superciliosa with eight young, and a duck of Nyroca australis with six young on Jimbaloora Swamp, North-west Australia. Berney {Emu, Vol. VI., p. 156, 1907) has recorded from North Queens- land : “ The Whistler, as it is always called, is to be seen commonly during the summer, and less so from May to September. Although other Ducks may be seen more frequently, D. eytoni holds pride of place for numbers, for I have seen a hundred and twenty to a hundred and fifty 70 PLUMED WHISTLING DUCK. on two or three occasions, and once a flock of three hundred. They have a rather laborious flight, and are comparatively easy shooting. They seldom nest here, but nests of eggs have been reported to me in February.” North {Ptoc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. XXII., p. 60, 1897) summarised his observations thus : “ It is exclusively a fresh-water duck, and is generally met with in the shallow water near the margins of swamps and rivers, except during the breeding-season, when it resorts to well-grassed country some distance from water. Living chiefly on a vegetable diet, which consists principally of the tender buds of various aquatic plants and grasses, its flesh is much esteemed as an article of food, and for delicacy of flavour is considered by some to surpass that of any other duck inhabiting Australia.” The bird figured and described is a male, collected on Parry’s Creek, North-west Australia, on the 3rd February, 1909, by Mr. J. P. Rogers. 71 Genus—R a D J a H. Radjah Reiclieribacli, Nat. Syst. Vogel., p. x., 1852 Also spelt — Radja Bonaparte, Comptes Rendus Sci. (Paris), Vol. XLIII., p. 649, 1856. Gennceochen Heine and Reichenow, NomencL Mus. Hein. Orn., p. 343, 1890 Type Type R. radjah. R. radjah. Medium-sized Anatine birds with long broad bills, long wings, medium tails, stout legs and feet. Anatine birds (strictly speaking) are characterised by their long bills, the length being always more than twice the depth of the bill at the base, short necks, and in having the metatarsus with a row of scutes on the front portion. The bill is about as long as the head, the culmen rather concave ; the nostrils are oval- apertures placed high up near base of culmen on each side of culmen ridge which is obscurely indicated ; naU rather broad and short ; the lateral edges of the culmen expanded anteriorly so that the bill is broader half way from the nostrils to the tip than at the base ; strong lamellas visible on inner edges of upper mandible for all their length. The under mandible narrow, the mandibular rami enclosing an unfeathered parallel-sided groove ; the nail small and flattened. The wings are long with the second primary longest, the third longer than the first, which is longer than the fourth. The tail is rounded and nearly half the length of the wing and more than twice the length of the culmen. The legs are long and stout ; the metatarsus has one row of scutes anteriorly placed, otherwise it is covered with reticulate scales ; it is longer than the culmen and more than half the length of the tail. The toes are long and fully webbed, the hind toe narrowly lobed. In the Catalogue of Buds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVII., p. 175, 1895, the species I include in the genus Radjah is placed under the genus Tadorna, the type of which is the Common Sheldrake of Europe. The differences given between the genera Tadorna and Casarca in the Key, p. 142, read : ‘‘ Edges of the bill with more or less prominent lamella. BiU broader towards the tip than at the base ; culmen rather concave ; lamellae 72 RADJAH. more developed towards the tip of the upper mandible ; lower mandible with the lamellae not projecting outwardly ; feet flesh-colour ; sexes similar. Tadorna. Bill not broader towards the tip than at the base ; culmen almost straight ; lamellae equally developed along the inner edge of the upper mandible ; lamellae on the edge of the lower mandible not projecting outwardly ; bill and feet dark ; sexes dissimilar. Cusarca.” This quotation well shows the minute differences which have been utilised for the differentiation of Anatine genera, and in the present case as Casarca has been admitted even by genus-lumpers, I find I must admit Radjah. The lamellae on the mandibles more closely approach those of Casarca than those of Tadorna, while compared with the type of Tadorna, I note Radjah differs in its shorter wing though longer tail, while the bill is longer and broader and the legs and feet are stouter. It differs from Casarca in almost the same manner, so that its recognition can scarcely be denied. While admitting the difference in sex coloration as worthy of note in a consideration of generic features I would have ignored the coloration of the feet as valueless. VOL. IV. 73 t Order AN8ERIF0RME8 No. 260. Family ANATIDM. RADJAH RADJAH RUPITERGUM. WHITE-HEADED SHELD-DRAKE. (Plate 208.)* Tadorna RADJAH RHFiTERGTJM Hartert, Nov. Zool., Vol. XII., p. 205, 1905 ; South Alligator River, Northern Territory. Tadorna radjah Eyton, Monogr. Anatidae, p. 106, 1838 ; Gould, Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 8, 1844 ; Gray, List Birds Brit. Mus., pi. iii., p. 132, 1844 ; Reichenbach, Sjmops. Av. Natat., pi. 93, figs. 435-6, 1845 ; Stokes, Discov. in Austr., Vol. I., App., p. 483 ; Vol. II., p, 58, 1846 ; Leichhardt, Journ. Overl. Exped. Austr., pp. 217, 288, 291, 1847 ; Macgillivray, Narr. Voy. “ Rattlesnake,” Vol. II., App., p. 358, 1852 ; Lichten- stein, Nomencl. Av. Mus. Berol, p. 101, 1854 ; Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 360, 1865 ; Gray, Handl. Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. iii,, p. 80, 1871 (part) ; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. I., pp. 194, 217, 386, 395, 1877 ; Vol. II., p. 200, 1878 ; Vol. III., p. 300, 1879 ; Vol. IV., p. 102, 1879 ; Masters, ib., Vol. II., p. 276, 1877 ; Ramsay, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1877, p. 346 ; Sclater, ih., 1880, p. 511, 535 (part); Diggles, Birds Austr., Vol. II., pi. Ill, 1877; Salvin, Cat. Birds Strickl. Coll., p. 532, 1882 ; North, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., 2nd Ser., Vol. II., p. 446, 1887 ; Ramsay, Tab. List Austr. Birds, p. 22, 1888 ; Tristram, Cat. Coll. Birds, p. 50, 1888 ; North, Austr. Mus. Cat., no. 12, p. 338, 1890. Tadorna radjah (pt.) Salvador!, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVII., p. 175, 1895 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., p. 107, 1899 ; Campbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 1029, 1901 ; North, Viet. Nat., Vol. XIX., p. 36, 1902 ; Le Souef, ib., p. 68 ; Le Souef, Emu, Vol. II., p. 96, 1902 ; HaU, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 107, 1906 ; Broadbent, Emu, Vol. X., p. 245, 1910. Radjah eytoni Reichenbach, Nat. Syst. Vogel., p. x., 1852 (part). Radja eytoni Bonaparte, Comptes Rendus Sci. (Paris), Vol. XLIII., p. 649, 1856 (part). Anas radjah Schlegel, Mus. Pays-Bas, Vol. VI., Anseres, p. 69, 1863 (part). Gennoeochen radjah Heine and Reichenow, Nomencl. Mus. Heine Om., p. 343, 1890. Tadorna radjah rnfitergum Hartert, Nov. Zool., Vol. XII., p. 205, 1905 ; Mathews, ib., Vol. XVIII., p. 237, 1912. Tadorna rufitergum Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral,, p. 35, 1908 ; id., Emu, Vol. X., p, 107, 1910 ; North, Austr. Mus. Spec. Cat., no. 1, Vol. IV,, p. 72, 1913 ; HiU, Emu, Vol. XII., p. 254, 1913 ; MacgiUivray, Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 147, 1914. * The Plate is lettered Tadorna rufitergum. w ■'ji'i lyi ;}"J o F- QJ -c; r 4 -> vlEP'R r-v, [ • : ■■ : ;:■ ■ i ! , I -■’ Vi/V- •• ■<’>*'; 7 ■I m r^«;; W ^K.-. ■^7 > T’l — f ’ i " r ' • 7 * .. - -r'A ■; '•'*’?'ii ffV ' 7 <'‘* . 5 > r -/J’j ■^- ■* . ■ V, Q) "o ‘0 fH o K - 1 '^ 0 - a a a 5 w ^ id ^ z ? a ^ s. o Q < E- g WHITE-HEADED SHELD-DEAKE. Tadorna radjobh ftindevsi Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 86, 1912 ; Cooktown, Queensland. Eadjah radjaJi rufitergum Mathews, List Birds Austr., p. 90, 1913. Disteibtjtion. North-west Australia ; Northern Territory ; Queensland. Adult male. Head and neck all round, breast and abdomen pure white, the breast crossed by a chestnut band of feathers which are narrowly barred with black ; upper back maroon-chestnut with narrow black bars, the black increasing in extent on the scapulars where the chestnut becomes obsolete ; lower back, rump, upper tail- coverts, and tail uniform black ; lesser, median, and greater upper wing-coverts pure white, the latter series with a narrow subterminal black band ; bastard-wing, primary-coverts, and quills uniform black ; secondary-quiUs white, broadly banded with metaUic green on the outer webs, the innermost secondaries black with a large median patch of maroon-chestnut on the outer webs. Bill white with a flesh-colour tinge ; iris white, eye-lash yellow ; tarsi and feet white tinged with flesh-colour. Total length 540 mm. ; culmen 46, wing 284, tail 107, tarsus 61. Adult female. Similar to the adult male but smaller. Total length 505 mm. ; culmen 44, wing 267, tail 101, tarsus 59. An immature bird, from Cooktown, differs in that the barring on the back is continued up to the white on the hind-neck. Nest. “ Within a hole or hollow spout of a tree, not necessarily near water.” “ In a hollow in a tree ” (Le Souef). Eggs. “ Clutch, probably about ten ; texture of shell fine ; surface smooth ; colour rich creamy- white. Dimensions in inches : 2.13-2.2 X 1.58-1.63 ” (North). “ Clutch, four to eleven. Very light in colour, being of a very pale eream ; smooth and slightly glossy. Measurements in inches : 2,28-2.41 X 1.55-1.68 ” (Le Souef). Breeding-season. December, January (Ramsay) ; February, April, May (Le Souef). The life-history of this beautiful bird appears to be unknown. I have no notes from any of my correspondents, and Gould’s notes, made seventy odd years ago, which I here transcribe, sum up our present knowledge : “ This beautiful Shieldrake is found in numerous flocks on all the lakes and swamps of the northern and eastern portions of Australia ; like the other members of the genus, it frequently perches on trees and resorts to the hollow branches and boles for the purpose of breeding, the young being removed to the water by their parents immediately after they are hatfehed. When the rainy season has set in, and the water of the lakes has become too deep for them to reach the roots of a species of rush upon which they feed, they scatter over the face of the country, and are then to be seen wading through the mangrove bushes and over the soft mud left by the receding tide, the surface of which affords an abundant supply of food, consisting of crabs, mollusks and other marine animals. The sexes present no visible difference i i their colour or markings, nor is there a sufficient difference in size to distinguish the male from the female.” Ramsay {Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1877, p. 346) recorded under the name Tadorna radjali : “I found this fine Wood-Duck breeding in holes in the 75 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. hollow limbs of trees during the months of December and January. It is a common species all over Queensland north of the Mary River. I have received specimens from Port Denison and Rockingham Bay, and also examined specimens from Port Moresby, in New Guinea. The Port Moresby birds have a much narrower pectoral band than is found in the Australian examples I have seen.” Salvador! {Gat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVII., p. 176, 1895) commented : “ Australian specimens are larger, and have the back much more chestnut than those from the Moluccas and Papuan Islands.” This was followed up in 1905 by Hartert {Nov. Zool., Vol. XII., p. 205), who upon comparison named the Australian bird Tadorna radjah rufitergum, writing : “ Comparing the Australian specimens with our large series from the Moluccan Islands and New Guinea, Mr. Rothschild and I found that the former differ strikingly from the latter (i.e. typical radjah) by their chestnut or dark chestnut instead of brownish-black upper back. Count Salvador! has already drawn attention to the differences of Australian specimens, but has not given a name to them. The larger size of the Australian bird is not constant in a series, though generally noticeable.” In my List Birds Austr., p. 90, 1913, I gave the type of Radjah as “ Anas radjah Gould = Tadorna radjah rufitergu7n Hartert.” This is not correct. Reichenbach gave the type as Radjah eytoni and quoted figures : these figures are eopies of Gould’s plate and one other ; the other does not represent an Australian bird, and consequently Radjah eytoni is simply a new substitute for Anas radjah Garnot as a whole ; Reichenbach did not differentiate the Australian bird though his figures show the differences vividly ; had he done so his name would long have anticipated that of Hartert. The bird figured and described is a male collected on Parry’s Creek, North-west Australia, on the 12th February, 1909, by Mr. J. P. Rogers. 76 Genus — C A S A R C A. Casarca Bonaparte, Comp. List Birds Europe and N. Amer., p. 56, 1838 . . . . . . . . Type C. ferruginea. Also spelt — Gasarka Eyton, Monogr. Anatidse, p. 27, 1838. Nettalopex Heine and Reichenow, Nomencl. Mus. Heine Orn., p. 343, 1890 . . . . . . . . . . Type C. ferruginea. Large Anatine birds with long broad bills, long wings, medium tail, long legs and long toes. Under the genus name Radjah I have given Salvadori’s characters for distinguishing Casarca from Tadorna. I have pointed out how Radjah can be recognised, and would here note the differences between Casarca and that genus. The bill is long, about the same length as that of Radjah, but the sides do not expand so much and the culmen ridge is less defined ; the nail is not well differentiated but merges imperceptibly into the sides. The lameUse of the upper and lower mandibles project noticeably. The wings are longer with the second primary longest, but the first nearly equalling and longer than the third. The tail is comparatively shorter, being only about one third of the length of the wing. The metatarsus is about the same length as that of Radjah, though the latter is much the smaller bird. That is, though Radjah is shorter in the wing, agreeing with the smaller size of the bird, the bOl is as long and the legs are as long as in tiie present genus, making all the proportions quite different. 77 Order AN8ERIF0RMES No. 261. Family ANATIDM. CASARCA TADORNOIDES. MOUNTAIN DUCK. (Plate 209.) Anas tadornoidbs Jardine and Selby, Ulus. Ornith., Vol. II., pi. Ixii., 1828 ; New South Wales. New Holland Shieldrake Latham, Gen. Hist. Birds, Vol. X., p. 306, 1824. Anas tadornoides Jardine and Selby, Ulus. Ornith., Vol. II., pi. Ixii., 1828 ; Lafresnaye, Mag. Zool. Ois., 1836, text to pi. 36 ; Lesson, Compl. de Buff. Ois., Vol. IX., p. .534, 1837 ; Schlegel, Mus. Pays-Bas, Vol. VI., Anseres, p. 65, 1866 ; Giebel, Thes. Ornith., Vol. I., p. 364, 1872. Anas kasarlcoides Lafresnaye, Mag. de Zool., text to pi. 36, 1836 (New South Wales). CasarJca tadornoides Eyton, Monogr. Anatidse, p. 107, 1838 ; id., Synops. Anatidee, p, 58, 1869. Casarca tadornoides Gould, Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 7, 1844 ; Gray, List Birds Brit. Mus., pt. III., p. 133, 1844 ; id., Genera Birds, Vol. III., p. 613, 1845 ; Reichenbach, Synops. Av. Natatores, pi. 93, figs. 428-430, 1845 ; Stokes, Discov. in Austral., Vol. I., App., p. 483, 1846 ; Sturt, Narr. Exped. Cent. Austr., Vol. II., App., p. 55, 1849 ; Lichtenstein, Nomencl. Av. Mus. Zool. Berol., p. 101, 1854 ; Bonaparte, Comptes Rendus Sci. (Paris), Vol. XLIII., p. 649, 1856 ; Sclater, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1862, p. 185 ; Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 361, 1865 ; Gray, Handl. Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. m., p. 80, 1871 ; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. I., pp. 195, 219, 1877 ; Vol. II., p. 200, 1878 ; id.. Tab. List Austr. Birds, p. 22, 1888 ; Blaauw, Ibis 1894, p. 317 ; Salvador!, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVII., p. 185, 1895 ; North, Trans. Roy. Soc. South Austr., Vol. XXII., p. 190, 1898 ; Campbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 1030, 1901 ; Littler, Emu, Vol. III., p. 216, 1904 ; Milligan, ih., Vol. IV., p. 11, 1904 ; M’Clymont, ih., Vol. V., p. 162, 1906 ; Batey, ib., Vol. VII., p. 15, 1907 ; Hill, ih., p. 23 ; Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 35, 1908 ; HaU, Emu, Vol. IX., p. 79, 1909 ; Crossman, ih., p. 86 ; Whitlock, ih., p. 190, 1910 ; Littler, Handb. Birds Tasm., p. 218, 1910 ; Ogilvie- Grant, Ibis 1910, p. 174 ; Orton and Sandland, Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 76, 1913 ; North, Austr. Mus. Spec. Cat,, no. 1, Vol. IV., p. 70, 1913 ; Mathews, List Birds Austr., p. 90, 1913. Tadorna tadornoides Hartlaub, Syst. Verz. Ges. Mus., p. 118, 1844; Sclater, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1864, p, 191, pi. xviii., id., ih., 1880, p. 512 ; Legge, Papers Proc. 78 \ CASARCA TADORNOIDES. {MOUNTAIN DUCK). ."<= I ’ tv^T ^ :,v . . ■ — ■'AirtwidiTTw/Ar nlL ■ siuC^>4a JIni' ^ MOUNTAIN DUCK. Roy. Soc. Tasm., 1886, p. 244, 1887 ; Tristram, Cat. CoU. Birds, p. 59, 1889 ; Hartert, Katal. Vogels Mus. Senckenb., p. 228, 1891 ; Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 237, 1912 ; White, Emu, Vol. XII., p. 183, 1913. Vulpanser tadomoides Reichenow, Orn. Centralbl., 1882, p. 35 ; id., Vogel. Zool. Gart., p. 62, 1882. Nettalopex tadornina Heine and Reichenow, Nomencl. Mus. Hein. Orn., p. 343, 1890. Casarca tadernoides Hall, Key Birds Austr., p. 107, 1899 ; Milligan, Emu, Vol. II., p. 76, 1902 ; HiU, ih., p. 167, 1903 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 107, 1906 ; {id., Emu, Vol. IX., p. 133, 1910. Tadorna tadomoides westralis Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 118, 1912 ; South-west Australia. DiSTRiBUTioif. New South Wales ; Victoria ; Tasmania ; South Australia ; South- west AustraUa. Adult male. Head and upper-neck all round glossy black followed by a white coUar ; a short white line immediately below the eye ; fore-neck, breast, lower hind-neck, and mantle rufous chestnut ; back and scapulars black, finely vermiculated with sandy-buff fike the sides of the body, abdomen, and under tail-coverts ; lesser, median, and greater upper wing-coverts pure white ; bastard-wing, primary- coverts and quills black ; secondary-quills glossy green on the outer webs, brown on the inner ones and fringed with white, some of the inner secondaries almost white with only a little brown freckling near the tip, the innermost secondaries chestnut on the outer webs and dark grey on the inner ones ; rump, upper tail- coverts, and tail black ; axillaries and under wing-coverts white, the greater imder wing-coverts pale brown like the quill lining. Bill black ; iris dark brown ; feet greyish-brown. Total length 740 mm. ; culmen 45, wing 368, tail 118, tarsus 64, Adult female. Differs from the adult male in having the feathers encircling the base of the bill white, also a white ring round the eye which broadens out on the hinder part, the white collar narrower, the chestnut not so uniform in colour and extending on to the sides of the body, and the abdomen brown instead of black. Total length 730 mm. ; culmen 40, wing 343, tail 114, tarsus 56. Immature female. Differs in having the crown of the head more freckled with brown. Immature male. Differs from the adult female in having much less white at the base of the bill and round the eye, the head brown instead of black, and the chestnut on the fore-neck, breast, hind-neck, and mantle much paler, abdomen also paler. Nestling in down. Pure white marked with pale brown on the head, hind-neck, back, wings, tail, middle of the back, and on the sides of the back leading towards the thighs. Nest. Usually placed in a hollow limb of a tree ; sometimes near water, but often not. Sometimes nests in rabbit-burrows and on the ground. Nest lined with down. Eggs. Clutch, 8 to 14 ; ground-colour creamy-white, surface glossy ; axis 68-70 mm., diameter 49-50. Breeding-season. July to December. Although I have received more notes concerning this bird it will be obvious to the student that little is yet known of its habits, and there is still much to do. 79 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. It was first described by Latham in the General History of Birds, Vol. X., p. 306, 1824, under the name New Holland Shieldrake, where a reference is given to “Cook’s Last Voy., I, 229,” which I have not yet traced. Four years later Jardine and Selby described it, giving it the Latin name Anas tadornoides. Sturt {Narr. Ex'ped. Gentr. Austr., Vol. II., App., p. 55, 1849) wrote: “ This beautiful duck, the pride of Australian waters, is a bird of the finest plumage. He is called the Mountain Duck by the settlers, and may be more common in the hills than the low country, since he is seldom found in the latter district. This bird builds in a tree, and when the young are hatched, the male bird carries them in his bill down to the ground. Strange, whose name I have already mentioned, had an opportunity to watch two birds that had a brood of young in the hollow of a lofty tree on the Gawler : and after the male bird had deposited his charge, he went and secured the young, five in number, which he brought to me at Adelaide, but I could not, with every care, keep them alive more than a month. It is not a good eating bird, however, as is often the case with the birds of the finer plumage.” Mr. Tom Carter writes : “ I have onlj^ seen this handsome species in South-west Australia. They are simply in thousands on Lake Muir (salt water) where I saw them in April and December, 1911. I was shown an old nest that had contained twelve eggs shortly before my December visit. I climbed to it, which was placed 25 feet from the ground in a large date tree (eucalyptus) in a hollow branch. The nest was about six feet below the entrance hole and was largely lined with down. The tree was half a mile from the Lake edge and grew on the edge of a crop of wheat. Nov. 4, 1902. Noted small young with the parent birds on the Vass River, where they are not uncommon on the lower tidal part.” Mr. E. J. Christian records from Victoria : “ Why this bird is called ‘ Mountain Duck ’ I don’t know, as its home is on the plains of the Western District, and is also found from July to October up here and I have always found it in the centre of the open plain. The drake is a large bird and is generally attended by four or five ducks. They are often seen right away from water and are fairly tame. Last year (1907) when the grasshoppers were bad, I used to approach these birds on horseback and could see them eating them as fast as they could. They also did good work when the caterpillar pest came. They build in a hollow in a high gum-tree.” Later he added : “ Oct. 5, 1909. I noticed first drake since last autumn, but whether they are migratory or not I cannot say.” 80 MOUNTAIN DUCK. Mr. Sandland wrote; “Very rare visitor at Balah, South Australia, Fairly common round Burra. Have heard of several nests being taken on Koonoona Station. Occasionally nests down an old rabbit-burrow.” Mr. J. W. MeUor’s account reads : “ Known as the ‘ Mountain Duck ’ by the people, on account of the bird going back into the hills and often far from the low swampy land to carry on its breeding, although this is not always the case, as I have found them breeding close to the swamps, but even then high and dry on some elevated land. They often lay in hollows of trees, high up some large eucalypt, which has fallen into decay in places, and so left a large hole, in which the duck deposits her eggs, the clutch being from eight to a dozen, of large size and of a whitish, creamy colour, being well glossed on the surface like the general eggs of the duck family. I have also known them to lay in rabbit- burrows, where trees were not available. These birds I have seen breeding fairly well about Lakes Alexandrina and Albert, where they make their nests on the rising sandy soil, and beneath the long, over- hanging, spine-like leaves of the grass tree {XantJiorrhoea) which reach right to the ground, and so make a closed-in hollow ; the nest is lined with down plucked from the breast of the bird, and as soon as the young are hatched, they can run with remarkable rapidity and make off for water. The call of the Mountain Duck is somewhat peculiar, being a harsh ‘chank chank’ resembling that of a goose, uttered twice,* the call being made on the wing as well as on the ground, but while on the ground a second note will often be uttered by the drake resembling ‘ chick-hunke ’ or ‘ chick-ooke ’ the o’s being sounded softly, the note being made with outstretched neck, and the head near the ground, the ‘ chick ’ being forced out sharply as through the nose, while the latter ‘ hunke ’ is more drawn out especially in the centre, and of a decidedly guttural tone, from the breast of the bird. They will stand being kept in captivity, but not in close confinement, as their nature is somewhat of a \ roving disposition, and they require open runs, with plenty of grass, etc., upon which they live to a certain extent, their diet being also composed of grain. They are not found in large flocks as a rule, preferring to go in small parties of six to a dozen, and when the breeding-season approaches they pair off and seek their nesting haunts in couples. This is during the months of August, September and October. In the early days they were plentiful about the reed-beds during the winter months, but now the advance of civilization has driven them away, as they are a timid bird, and easily frightened, being constantly on the watch night and day, as VOL. IV. 81 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. they are as much nocturnal as they are diurnal, and one would wonder when they take their rest.” Captain S. A. White’s notes, also regarding South Australia, confirmed the preceding, but a later one made upon Lake Albert, reads pleasantly : “ I had never seen more than twenty to thirty of these birds together before, but this trip opened our eyes. By lying flat down in a small duck boat we were able to get within thirty yards of a flock of these birds, which would be under-estimated if put down between three and four thousand. On rough days when the surface of the lake was much disturbed, they assembled in a dense mass on a spit some distance from the shore, in company with many kinds of ducks, pelicans, spoonbills, crane, etc. When the weather was fine they spread out over the shallow parts of the lake, feeding upon the weed at the bottom. The female makes a loud, harsh, nasal, canking cry, and the male answers with a deep short note like a grunt. We found these birds were not nearly so good eating as other duck, still they are far from what some people think — that is unedible, and we were glad at times to get their flesh to eat.” Hall {Emu, Vol. IX., p. 79, 1909) observed : “ Feeds upon the short mossy grasses in the same way as the Maned Goose. This causes quick decomposition of the bird when killed in summer.” In view of Mr. Mellor’s experiment with the nestlings of CJienonetta jubata (ante, p. 57), it should be recorded that Campbell {Nests and Eggs, Vol. II., p. 1031, 1901) has reproduced the account of a writer in the weekly news- paper The Australasian, who unfortunately signed himself “ Nemo.” This writer asserted that this bird carried its young in its bill from the nesting- hole to the ground. More reliable observations must be made to reconcile this assertion with Mr. Mellor’s results above referred to. Mr. T. P. Austin (North, Austr. Mus. Spec. Cat., no. 1, p. 71, 1913) noted : “ On Barwon Park Station, near Winchelsea, Victoria, the Mountain Duck {Casarca tadornoides) was to be seen on the brackish and salt lakes at aU times of the year, but never in very large numbers. Although not looked upon as a suitable bird for the table, consequently never shot at, they were always very wild, in fact the wildest of all the Ducks. A few pairs bred on this station every year, as I always saw young birds about, often just hatched, but it was a puzzle to me where they had their nests ; I never found one or heard of one being found. The only trees about were a few Red Gums along the Barwon River. It was a most unusual thing to see any of these Ducks at fresh water.” Dr. Macgillivray’s account {ibid.) reads : “ Of the Anatince found here (Hamilton, Western Victoria) Casarca tadornoides is the earliest breeder, eggs 82 MOUNTAIN DUCK. being obtainable in July and early in August. This species is usually seen in pairs, but I once counted forty in a flock on a swamp on the Murndal Estate. It is very wary, leaving a swamp or lagoon when the first shot is fired, and not returning again ; most other Ducks will circle round and round and alight more than once before becoming thoroughly alarmed.” Mr. G. A. Keartland wrote {ibid.) : “The Sheldrake {Casarca tadornoides) is found all over the Australian continent. I have shot these birds in Southern Victoria and in North-western Australia, but the western district of Victoria and the swamps in the vicinity of the Murray River appear to be their favourite haunts. Except when the young ones are with their parents they are usually found in pairs. They breed in hollow branches, preference being given to trees overhanging water. When the brood is hatched the old bird swims under the nest and calls the little ones, which jump down into the water, flapping their little wings and working their feet as they drop. As soon as they are all down the old bird swims away to a nice landing- place. Their flesh is somewhat coarse, although they are grass feeders.” The male bird figured and described was collected at Newstead, near Castlemain in Victoria, in December, 1862. Genus — ^ANAS. Anas Linne, Syst. Nat., lOth ed., p. 122, 1758 , . Type A. platyrJiynchos. Anassus Rafinesque, Analyse de la Nature, p. 72, 1815 (c/. AuJc, 26, p. 52). Substitute name for Anas L. . . . . . . . . . . . . Type A. 'platyrhynchos. Boschas Swainson, Fauna Boreal-Amer. Birds, p. 442, 1832 . . . . . . . . . . Type A. 'platyrhynchos. Medium-sized Anatine birds with long bills, medium necks, long wings, short legs and long toes, the hind toe narrowly lobed. The bill is longer than the head, depressed, somewhat concave above, anterior to the nostrils, which are oval apertures placed near the base of the culmen ; the depth of the bill at the base is about equal to its width, and is less than half its length ; culmen ridge not differentiated and scarcely indicated ; nail not well distinguished, broad and flattened, tip scarcely over- hanging and not pointed ; lameUee on the edges of the upper mandible regularly comb-like, projecting a little. Under mandible narrow ; mandibular rami parallel, enclosing a narrow unfeathered tract, nail fusing with rami ; lameUse on the edges appearing as a weU-deflned comb. The wings are long with the second primary longest, first subequal with third. The tail is short, about one-third the length of the wing, the feathers rather pointed. The metatarsus is short, less than half the length of the tail and has a row of scutes on the anterior face, otherwise coarsely reticulate. The toes are long and fully webbed, the middle toe longer than the metatarsus but shorter than the culmen. The hind toe is small. m-Qx'i j m? ■'*%i i X,- r . h’M ' ' '.-A.,'',, *:.-■' IJ: -■r,;..!ri'.^' .'K-Tit-' 1 I h'H.''- 'r'C.'':,'. ''(J; •fc. ':''-i'-j‘\l«^(Vy ' J' “■■ . ;■ ■ I ' ' ;'- ■' A3>*!i>4's<' ■'■ m- ';m .'"i ir^4 Wjti' . a^fTii^iMW I *^*0* y ‘M- . "i-J • , » ‘rf.vo ; -r. iA r/- ■ ■ I."',' .V-?/'' ■• >. «'i M' ' .. ; >T‘-- Jii-' V ' I .■‘i! .ij. V ! '. • I v’-, y»-; ; f rPfl-:- .’f ’* ' T ■ » ■ » ^ : ifeii* -....V, .v^'''S;’ I ■ '. • :vV'...r'*vy ^ ■. •' ' ■ • . '■' ’.* '•, i.v-'* ■■, JWjt ; "i '" -* ,■■ lUr^l^S . • _ - ' 1 j'. ' /WsC^iv™. '^' ■■' ’v•^ I'if I I ■ -‘S •- r' ■ ';'•»(■ - - v- ■ .-,.,V-./« ^ A- •, ' I «■ '* « L ■■ ■K,::.'" -v-'. ) . 1 ; 4l;>=- l<^ , i S" • I ' '- ' '-t" '* ■ a. • J ■■ '«?1 ie',,'' vy*;j t ■'/ y‘‘. p I ANAS SU PERC I L I O S A . mLACK JDUCJC} Order ANSEBIFORMES No. 262. Family AN AT ID JE. ANAS SUPERCILIOSA ROGERSI. BLACK DUCK. (Plate 210.)* Anas superciliosa rogbrsi Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 33, 1912 ; Augusta, South-west Australia. Anas superciliosa (pt.) Lesson, Traite d’Omith., p. 633, 1831 ; Gray, List Birds Brit. Mus., pt. m., p. 135, 1844 ; id.. Genera Birds, Vol. III.,- p. 615, 1845 ; Gould, Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 9, 1845 ; Reichenbach, Synops. Av. Natat., pi. 85, figs. 913-914, 1845 ; pi. 94, fig. 2347, 1850 ; Sturt, Narr. Exped. Centr, Austr., Vol. II,, App., p. 56, 1849 ; MacgiUivray, Narr. Voy. “ Rattlesnake,” Vol. II., App,, p. 358, 1852 ; Blyth, Cat. Birds Mus. As. Soc. Bengal, p. 304, 1852 ; Lichten- stein, Nomencl. Mus. Zool. Berhn, p. 101, 1854; Bonaparte, Comptes Rendus Sci. (Paris), Vol. XLIII., p. 649, 1856 ; Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 363, 1865 ; Ramsay, Ibis 1866, p. 335 ; Schlegel, Mus, Pays-Bas, Anseres, Vol. VI., p. 42, 1866 ; Muller, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.), 1869, p. 280 ; Gray, Hand!. Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. m., p. 82, 1871 ; Pelzehi, Ibis 1873, p. 123 ; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. I., pp. 77, 195, 216, 219, 1876-7 ; Vol. II., p. 200, 1878 ; id., Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1877, p. 346 ; id., Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. IV., p. 102, 1879 ; Sclater, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1880, p. 517, 535 ; Legge, Papers Proc, Roy. Soc. Tasm. 1886, p. 244, 1887 ; id., ih., 1887, p. 97, 1888 ; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., 2nd Ser., Vol. I., p. 1152, 1887 ; id.. Tab. List Austr. Birds, p. 22, 1888 ; North, Austr. Mus. Cat., no. 12, p. 341, 1890 ; Heine and Reichenow, Nomencl. Mus. Hein., p. 345, 1890; North, Trans. Roy. Soc. South 4^ustr., Vol. XXII., p. 190, 1898 ; HaU, Key Birds Austr., p. 107, 1899 ; Campbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 1033, 1901 ; Le Souef, Emu, Vol. II., p. 159, 1903 ; Hill, ih., p. 167, 1903 ; Milligan, ih., Vol. III., p. 19, 1903 ; Carter, ih., p. 211, 1904 ; Littler, ih., p. 216, 1904 ; Kilgour, ih., Vol. IV., p. 38, 1904 ; Legge, ih., p. 107, 1905 ; Lawson, ih., p. 137, 1905 ; D’Ombrain, ih., p. 162, 1905 ; Hartert, Nov. Zool., Vol. XII., p. 206, 1905 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 107, 1906 ; Berney, Emu, Vol. VI., p. 156, 1907 ; Batey, ih., Vol. VII., p. 14, 1907 ; HiU, ih., p. 23, 1907 ; Austin, ih., p. 79, 1907 ; Ingram, Ibis 1907, p. 395 ; Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 35, 1908 ; Whitlock, Emu, Vol. VIII., p. 194, 1909 ; Gibson, ih., IX., p. 76, 1909 ; Hall, ih., p. 78, 1909 ; Crossman, ih., p. 86, 1909 ; Hall, ih., p. 133, 1910 ; Whitlock, ih., p. 190, 1910 ; Howe, ih., p. 229, 1910 ; Batey, * The Plate is lettered Anas superciliosa. 85 THE BIEDS OF AUSTKALIA. ih., p. 244, 1910 ; Littler, Handb. Birds Tasm., p. 219, 1910 ; Ogilvie-Grant, Ibis 1910, p. 174 ; Barnard, Emu, Vol. XL, p. 20, 1911 ; Stone, ib., XII., p. 121, 1912 ; Mellor and White, ib., p. 161, 1913 ; White, ib., p. 183, 1913 ; Hill, ib., p. 254, 1913 ; Orton and Sandland, ib., XIII., p. 76, 1913 ; North, Austr, Mus. Spec. Cat., no. 1, Vol. IV., p. 74, 1913; White, Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 124, 1914; MacgiUivray, ib., p. 147, 1914 ; Barnard, ib., Vol. XIV., p. 41, 1914. Anas novmJiollandice Stokes, Discov. in Austr., Vol. I., App., p. 483, 1846 ; nomen nudum ; Leichhardt, Joum. Overl. Exped. Austr., pp. 203, 291, 1847 ; nomen nudum. Anas superciliosa superciliosa Mathews, Nov. ZooL, Vol. XVIII., p. 237, 1912. Anas superciliosa rogersi Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 33, 1912 ; id.. List Birds Austr., p. 91, 1913. Distribution. Australia ; Tasmania. Adult male. General colour above bronze-brown, the feathers everywhere margined with buff slightly darker and more blackish-brown on the lesser and median upper wing-coverts where the margins are grey ; outer greater coverts velvety black, which form a short black bar on the wing ; primary-coverts and primary-quills uniform bronzy-brown ; outer webs of secondaries dark metallic green, subterminally velvety black and edged with white at the tips, outer webs of some of the inner secondaries also velvety black, the innermost secondaries like the long scapulars ; tail-feathers bronze-brown edged with rufous buff ; crown of head black as also a broad line in front, below, and behind the eye, another short black line from the gape on to the fore-cheeks ; chin and throat buff, as also a broad line on the sides of the face and the supercihary streak ; hinder cheeks, sides of the upper-neck and hind-neck minutely streaked with dark brown ; entire surface below bronze-brown with pale or rufous edgings to the feathers ; sides of the body like the upper-surface ; under wing-coverts pure white, some outer greater coverts pale grey on the outer webs. Bill black ; iris brown ; feet yellowish-brown. Total length 580 mm. ; culmen 54, wing 272, tail 91, tarsus 49, Adult female. Similar to the male but smaller and the general markings paler and coarser. Bill blue-black ; iris reddish-orange ; feet orange-yellow. Total length 557 mm. ; culmen 52, wing 248, tail 82, tarsus 43. Nestling in down. Sooty-brown above with yellowish-white markings on each side of the back and rump ; throat and sides of the face yellowish buff, which is crossed by a black streak through the eye and a short one on the hinder cheeks ; under- surface straw white with a buffy tinge on the fore-neck. As the bird grows it practically assumes the adult plumage as soon as the downy stage is passed. Nest. Sometimes placed in deserted nests in trees ; at others in a hole in a tree ; at others under a small bush sometimes near water, or some distance from it. Composed of grass and leaves Kned with down, and measures about a foot across by six inches deep. Eggs. Clutch, eight to thirteen ; ground-colour pale greenish-white, surface smooth and slightly glossy. Mostly nest stamed. Axis 56 to 58 mm. ; diameter 41 to 42.5. Breeding-season. January to April (ducklings in June), (North Queensland) ; July and August (Tasmania) ; August to October (November ?). On account of its dull coloration and commonness this bird has no early history, being simply classed in “ Ducks.” Confused with the New Zealand race, almost all the early technical references simply refer to the latter. 86 BLACK DUCK. Captain S. A. White’s notes read : “ This is one of the most familiar birds to South Australians, and they are dispersed throughout the State, frequenting the sea-coast as well as inland waters. They nest in August and September and very often a considerable distance from water : they are very fond of a standing crop to nest in and it is not uncommon to see thirteen eggs in a clutch.” Mr. J. W. Mellor wrote : “ Found all over Australia, there being not a better known bird to the people of our Continent, where it is universally known as the ‘ Black Duck.’ Its haunts are so well known, and its distribution so wide that it is almost unnecessary to state them. At the Reed-beds near Adelaide they were in thousands in former times, but now are only seen in small lots of ten or twenty, and more often singly or in pairs. They are to be seen on almost every lake or swampy land, where they live on seeds of grass or aquatic plants, also eat a lot of the leaves of plants, such as thistles, etc. They are fond of ‘ dock ’ seed, which is found abundantly on swampy land. On Lakes Alexandrina and Albert, on the Coorong in South Australia, I have seen them in vast flocks, but they are so molested now by ‘sportsmen’ (?) that they are becoming much more scarce. They nest in a variety of places. I have found them in the flags and reeds right in the water, also in the thick, high grass far from their ‘ native element ’ ; also in hollows of trees high up from the ground. The eggs are generally of a creamy colour and well glossed 'On the surface and vary considerably in number, from 6 to 8 up to twelve to a clutch. These were not plentiful (on the Islands) and generally seen in pairs, their absence being due doubtless to their nesting at this time : a nice snug nest was seen on an island, containing nine eggs, being about twelve inches across, and nine inches bowl and six inches deep, composed of scraps of grass and leaves, warmly lined with down from the bird’s breast.” Mr. Tom Carter has given me the following note : “I found this species not nearly so numerous in the Mid-west as Nettion gibberifrons, Nyroca australis or Dendrocygna eytoni. In fact they were rather rare in my district. In the South-west it is the commonest species, and to be seen on any small water-hole or creek. Every year there are several broods reared in my paddocks at Wensleydale. At the excavated stock tank, 200 yards from the house, the birds become very tame, and even come to the stables and stockyards, midway between the house and tank, to pick up grains of corn from the dung of horses and cattle, and ofl the ground. At milking-time I have seen them actually underneath the cows, and a man milking within five yards. One used to feed 87 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. regularly from a box in company with a sick Ram, that had allowances of chaff. The nests are thickly lined with down, and may be placed on the very edge of the water, or built under a bush a mile distant from any water. Only last week I found a nest from which young had hatched this year in such a position. The earliest date on which I have noted eggs was July 25, 1912, when I found eight in a nest. I think these birds had a second brood as I saw very small young in down, at the same place on October 20, 1912. Sept. 22, 1907. Nest with 8 fresh eggs. These hatched about Oct. 17. August 16, 1908. A nest found on open sand plain, far from water. Oct. 28, 1910. Young in down about two days old. Oct. 21, 1908. Young over three-quarters grown. Nov. 2, 1906. Small young in down. Nov. 7, 1905. Young in down.” Mr. Sandland writes : “ Often seen on the tanks at Balah, South Australia : never very plentiful.” Mr. E. J. Christian, writing from North Victoria, states : “ The bird has not been here for six months. After the heavy rains at Christmas, 1907, they came here and were seen on every swamp ; they stayed till the middle of January and after that only an odd one or two. It prefers the swamp to the dam except in the evening or early morning. It builds in trees and carries its young down to water. One built (1906) in a deserted Black-backed Magpie’s nest here, in a Casuarina, and brought out a brood.” Mr. James J. Scrymgeour (Callandoon) writes : “ A Black Duck’s nest in a dead gum tree a mile and a quarter from water. Two seasons previously an Eagle Hawk built there and part of the old nest of the latter was clearly visible.” “ Found nest of twelve eggs on Oct. 13th, 1909, in hollow of tree about four feet from the ground : on Nov. 18th the young bad all left the nest. On Oct. 16, 1909, I saw a nest with eggs covered with feathers : at first I thought the nest was empty.” Mr. Dove on the 10th May, 1909, wrote from Tasmania : “At the same time as the Graucali (Cuckoo-Shrikes) were making to the North- west, a considerable flock of duck (probably either Black Duck or Grey Teal, but too high to determine — they both frequent our river) passed at a much greater altitude than the Cuckoo-Shrikes, headmg about N.N.E., right out over the Straits : they were flying straight and hard, and possibly would be going over to the Furneaux Group of Islands. I do not know whether there is any interchange between our duck and the mainland individuals.” 88 BLACK DUCK. Miss J. Fletcher sent me the following notes from Cleveland, Tasmania : “ Last season I discovered that the Macquarie Biver was a great place for all kinds of wild Ducks, but unfortunately owing to the extra wet season the river was constantly in flood and hundreds of eggs and nests of various waterfowl were washed away. These birds were plentiful but shy. They nested on the marshes some distance from the water, but I have never found the nest myself. Principally because their clutches are laid in July and early August, and the weather was wild and stormy. On 16 Aug., 1910, a boy’s dog flushed a Black Duck from a nest in a sword-grass tussock where she was sitting on eight ducklings. Next day they had left the nest. Oct. 31, 1910. I had a clutch of Black Duck eggs sent to me. Nest was in sword-grass tussock in swamp, and eggs were hard set.” Mr. Robert Hall, writing of the Birds of the Murray River District in the E^nu, Vol. IX., p. 78, 1909, states : “ This species and the Teal are the first to pair and nest. Both young and adult love to fish about the lilies and ‘ pussy-tail ’ weeds in search of shrimps and little ‘ yabbies.’ A flock will get in close order to fish by themselves and not in con- junction with the Coots as some other Ducks do. By adopting this mass method they generally ‘ bustle ’ the shrimps as the Pelicans do the beach fishes. When travelling a boat through the lagoon waters the shrimps and bream jump out because of fright. The birds appear to purposely frighten the shrimps in the shallow waters. The Cormorants will catch above as well as below when hunting in this way. On 29th April, 1907, as many as 300 Cormorants of mixed species were hunting in mass upon the weedy lagoons, where many Duck were also. The Black Duck is about the heaviest for its size, and invariably reaches the highest market price. (Melbourne).” Mr. G. Savidge (Austr. Mus. Spec. Cat., no. 1, Vol. IV., 1913, p. 75) records : “ The Black Duck {Anas superciliosa) is found in all kipds of situations on the large inlets of the sea, rivers, swamps, lagoons, and even small waterholes are sometimes tenanted by a pair or so. I have seen it on the Ulmarra Swamps in large flocks comprising many hundreds ; it is close on thirty years ago since my first acquaintance with it in the Clarence River District, and at that time it was so numerous it was no uncommon thing for a couple of guns to bag over one hundred in a single day. I have seen and heard them rise from the Ulmarra Swamps like the distant roar of thunder, and found their breeding-places many times, mostly in long blady grass and rushes, but not infrequently in the hole of a tree some distance from water.” St VOL. IV. 89 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. In the same place Mr. G. A. Heartland writes: “The Black Duck {Anas superciliosa) is undoubtedly the favourite Duck of our sportsmen, and being a strong flier it is able to change its quarters when its food supply becomes exhausted in any district. Although Black Ducks sometimes make their nests amongst reeds or rushes, they usually lay in hollow trees, often a mile or more from water. A friend living at Hedi informed me that one used to fly out of a hoUow tree near his track to the gate. He watched it until one day he saw the duck had something in its bill as it flew to the horse-pond, but soon returned to the nest. He concealed himself near the pond, and saw the bird make nine more trips, carrying a duckling in its bill each tune. As each little one was dropped in the water it dived and swam to the rushes, but as soon as they were all away from the nest the old mother called her brood together and remained with them.” Mr. T. P. Austin also added : “ When nesting in hollow trees they do not always fly away when disturbed. I have seen them come to the entrance of the holes, and there sit perfectly still with head straight out, much the same as they do in hiding when wounded. ... At harvesting time they can be heard in the wheat paddocks soon after dark ; wheat appears to be their principal food when they can get it, and they seem to be able to find it in the paddocks long after the harvesting is finished. Nearly all the Black Duck I shot in March had wheat in them, some of them great quantities.” Berney wrote {Emu, Vol. VI., p. 156, 1907) : “ The bonnie Black Duck is, among the aquatic game birds, the most constant resident. They nest with us every season, selecting the months January to April for the purpose, the most eggs being hatched during March and April, but I have a note that I saw a brood of six downy ducklings on 6th June, 1903, and I flushed a family of flappers on 2nd September in the same year. They do not flock here like Whistlers or Wood Duck, but distribute themselves in small parties among the bulrushes and lignum along the bore streams, where they can be walked up and make excellent shooting. They weigh from 2 to 2J pounds.” The determination of subspecies is difiicult owing to the variation and the dull coloration, and when Rothschild and Hartert discriminated a subspecific form under the name Aims superciliosa pelewensis in the Nov. Zool., Vol. XII., p. 248, 1905, they concluded : “ There is no doubt that the specimens from the Pelew Islands, Samoa, Fiji, and most conspicuously those from the Solomon Islands, are very much smaller (wings 1 to 2J inches shorter, bill smaller, etc.) than those from Australia 90 BLACK DUCK. and New Zealand. To emphasize this fact we use the above nomenclature. A. s. pelewensis is the only available name for the small race. Anas leucophrys Forster (1844) refers to the New Zealand form : Anas mulleri Bonaparte (1856) is a nomen nudum. There is, nevertheless, one difficulty, the specimens from the Kangean Islands, near Java, and those from Java, are also as small, or nearly as small, as those from the South Sea Islands, while those from Savu, Timor and Sumba are of the big race. The question therefore arises whether there are two small races, one in the Pacific and another on the Sunda Islands, or whether all these form one small race. Against the first possibility stands the fact that all those small birds are — ^at least so it seems to us, after having examined a few examples only ! — apparently alike, and with the second possibility the distribution does not seem to agree very well. At present we can, therefore, only emphasize the fact that there is, besides the larger Anas superciliosa superciliosa from New Zealand and Australia, a small race in the Pacific, which we call A. superciliosa pelewensis.^'’ In the Nov. Zool., Vol. XXI., October, 1914, Pothschild and Hartert dealing with a collection of birds from the Admiralty Islands under the name Anas superciliosa pelewensis write : “ $, $, wings 223, 224 mm. With regard to the differences of the smaller form we can only repeat what we have said in 1905. The two birds from Manus certainly belong to the smaller race — from their size and generally dark colour. This race has wings from 220-242 mm. in length.” Then follows a criticism of my separation of A. s. rogersi, where the arguments scarcely coincide with the facts which could be recognised from a consideration of my data. I should have concluded that Messrs. Rothschild and Hartert would have decided that a re-examination of material was necessary, but these workers do not appear to have thought it worth while to attempt to improve upon their work of nine years earlier. They criticise , my quotation of a single wing length, but it should have been obvious that the measurement given was of the type specimen, and that specimen was taken as typical of the subspecies. They suggest that no series was measured, as no detailed list of measurements nor the number of specimens examined was given. This error (!) they themselves comrpit in the same paragraph that they comment upon my oversight. Yet I do not see the value of pages of measurements, as the mode of measuring is more or less peculiar to the individual, and Messrs. Rothschild and Hartert declare that they cannot make the same figures to a millimetre as I do. I have also found the same difficulty and consequently save paper by allowing each worker to make his own measurements and arrive at his own conclusions. If mine be correct their 91 THE BIRDS OP AUSTRALIA. results will coincide. Messrs. Rothschild and Hartert apparently considered it too much trouble to do this but wrote their criticism instead. I fail to see that they have added to our knowledge of the subject by this contribution. It must be remembered that in the present case we are dealing with a bird which shows no change of plumage from immature to adult, no sexual or seasonal change. Consequently it is difficult to gauge the age of a bird and it is certain that the birds grow larger with age. Such a bird needs prolonged study and much consideration but rarely gets it. If a series from New Zealand be examined, bearing the above fact in mind, in comparison with a series from Australia, they will be found to average larger. New Zealand is the type locality of Anas superciliosa, and when I introduced Anas superciliosa rogersi I regarded East Australian birds as typical. Hence my conclusion that the West Australian birds were larger. I now unite both East and West Australian forms as differing from the Neozelanic form, and would note that the former are generally lighter in coloration. In the same place Rothschild and Hartert offer remarks on two other matters, and I think a few words may be here given in connection with those. It does not appear to aid much in the advancement of scientific knowledge to enter into discussion with regard to debatable points, especially when no new facts are introduced into the arguments. Thus, Rothschild and Hartert dismiss my hypothesis in connection with “ Demegretta sacra,’ ^ accepting that name and simply noting that I appeared to have overlooked the fact that Dr. Heinroth had taken a white bird and a grey one from the same nest, and that other Herons present more or less similar dichromatism. They conclude it would simply be the upholding of one theory against another, which has many more probabilities in its favour. In making this statement they do not appear to have studied the facts I produced nor did they work at the collection of Herons in the British Museum. If they had done so with careful criticism of the material available they might have rearranged their ideas. My own conclusions were arrived at by a fair consideration of the specimens at hand in conjunction with the reports of reliable bird- observers. The rejection of my theory without contravention of my arguments, without study of much material and without consideration of the facts themselves, is not conducive to much advancement. Of course, the fact that no white birds appear in New Zealand is minimised, and they give their reading of the Crow question. Thus they state that the two Crows {Corvus cornix and G. corone) inhabit strictly limited areas and inter-breed only when they meet. When the distribution of the Herons (called Demigretta sacra by Rothschild and Hartert) is accurately worked out, the same facts 92 BLACK DUCK. may be displayed. Workers engaged upon Palaearctic birds, when they make incursions into extra-limital regions, often fail to realise that south of the Equator very different barriers act and that boundaries may be framed which would look very erratic if placed upon a map, yet are natural and governed by natural conditions in reality. Thus it may be suggested that the White birds are more Northern than the Grey ones, and as facts might be adduced the observations that Grey birds only occur in New Zealand and are the commonest in Southern Australia, both East and West, while since my article was prepared MacgiUivray has recorded {Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 145-6, 1914) that on islands near Cape York, North Australia, “ the birds were in hundreds — nearly all white birds, only a few odd grey ones amongst them.” Such facts as these, which are of great interest, are lost sight of when a policy such as that advocated by Rothschild and Hartert is adopted. This paper by Rothschild and Hartert otherwise shows signs that these authors are not paying sufficient attention to literature to do exact work. Thus, in connection with Nycticorax caledonicus, they wrote: “We apparently do not know whether the rufous Night Heron is resident and breeding in New Caledonia, or whether it is only an occasional visitor. Dr. Sarasin seems to have seen it only once, though he says there is a series in the Museum at Noumea.” The fact that it was obtained by Forster in 1774 should have suggested it was more than an accidental visitor, while reference to the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVI., would have shown that many writers on New Caledonia had noticed it, and to quote the first one I looked up, Messrs. E. L. and L. C. Layard write {Ihis 1882, p. 531): “ This Night Heron is found sparingly wherever we have been. ... It may be that they [white occipital plumes] are only assumed during the breeding- season, and that they breed only in the north of the island.” Again, on p. 287, Rothschild and Hartert still persist in the use of the preoccupied and invalid generic name Carpophaga, and on p. 295 there appears — \ Monarcha chalyheocephalus chalyheocephalus, as the original reference appearing : “ Muscicapa chalyheocephalus Gamier, Voy. Coquille Zool. Atlas, pi. XV., fig. 1 ($), 1.2, p. 589 (1826-1828 — ^New Ireland).” Had the writers continued their reference to my List of the Birds of Australia, they would have seen that on p. 190 I used as the species name alecto Temminck 1827. Had they continued their investigation they would have seen that in the Austral Avian Record, Vol. II., 1913, pp. 49-54, I gave the exact dates of publication of the plates of the birds figured in the Yoy. Coquille in conjunction with the data regarding the text already provided by Sherborn. Consideration of that 93 THE BIEDS OF AUSTRALIA. article specially prepared to obviate errors such as here perpetuated by Rothschild and Hartert would have indicated three errors in the quotation given by them. The page 589 did not occur until 1829 (Nov. 21), while the plate XV. was not published till the end of 1828 (Nov. 29), and Garnot is the spelling of the author’s name to me. This extraordinary error in connection with this author’s name has persisted in Rothschild and Hartert’s mind for many years, as it appears in the former’s Monogra'ph of the Paradiseidoe prepared many years ago. This suggests some lack of pare in connection with their work and does not convince observers as to the accuracy of their statements in other matters. In a preceding paper similar inaccuracies occur, while at the same time they comment upon the fact that I failed to note that I had previously designated the type locality of a bird. Again it might be observed that in the present paper they describe a new species of Tyto from a solitary specimen after having devoted four and a half pages of the Nov. Zool. as recently as June, 1913 (Vol. XX., pp. 280-284) to the extraordinary variation they supposed to occur in Australian forms of Tyto. I will deal with that article in its proper place shortly, but I here note it to show the inconsistency present in their work. The inaccurate statements they then made I will prove in full under the genus Tyto in this work. To revert to the Black Duck, when compared with Australian birds those from New Zealand average larger, so that a different name must be used. I therefore class all the Australian birds under the name proposed for the Western form, which I differentiated and which may yet need recognition. The bird figured and described was collected at Broome Hill, South- west Australia, on the 15th of September, 1906, by Mr. Tom Carter. V 94 Genus — V I R A G 0 . Virago Newton, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1871, p. 651 ... Type F. castanea. Small Anatine birds with long bills and other characters generally agreeing with those of the genus Anas. The bill is not longer than the head, depressed and narrow, its width less than its depth at base of culmen which is less than half its length ; the serrations on the edges of the upper mandible just visible, the edges being strictly parallel. The tail is more than one-third the length of the wing, nearly approaching half its length in some cases. The metatarsus is just exceeded by the middle toe in length, but generally just equals the length of the culmen. Superficially the bO in this genus is more compressed and comparatively narrower than Nettion : the nostrhs placed nearer the base of the biQ. The legs and feet are shorter and a different coloration is easily observed. I note this as Salvadori placed these birds in the genus Nettion, and then admitted Querquedula, whose coloration fairly agrees in style with that of typical Nettion, while these absolutely differ. The name of this genus was given by Newton on account of an anatomical discovery that the females of the type species agreed in having an anatomical peculiarity otherwise only found in, and peculiar to, the males of this family of birds. This “ discovery ” seems to have been based on an erroneous supposition that the females could be guessed by coloration, and it seems that Newton did not sex the birds he examined, but simply thought they were females. At any rate, Newton’s discovery does not appear to have been confirmed, and Ramsay concluded that Neivton’s “ females ” of the bird he called Virago castanea were reaUy males of the next speces, F. gibber if rons. I use Newton’s generic name, as externally those two species differ from Nettion or Anas, the two nearest related genera. 95 Key to the Species. A. Head uniform glossy green ; under-surface deep chestnut ... .... F. castanea, p. 97. B. Head brown speckled with white ; under- surface ochreous buff . . . . . . F. gihberifrons rogersi, p. 102. NETTION CASTANEUM. ( TEA L ) . Order ANSERIF0RME8 No. 263. Family ANATIDjE. VIRAGO CASTANEA. GEEEN-HEADED TEAL. (Plates 211 and 212.)* Mabeca castanea Eyton, Monogr. Anatidse, p. 119, 1838 ; New South Wales. Mareca castanea Eyton, Monogr. Anatidse, p. 119, 1838 (N.S.W.) ; Gray, Genera Birds, Vol. III., p. 614, 1845 (N.S.W.) ; Reichenbach, Synops. Av. Natat., pi. 86, figs. 2330-31, 1850 (N.S.W.). Anas 'punctata (not Burchell 1822) Lesson, Traite d’Ornith., p. 634, 1831 (Java ? ?) ; Gould, Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 11, 1845 (N.S.W. and Tasmania) ; ? Sturt, Narr. Exped. Centr. Austr., Vol. II., App., p. 57, 1849 (Central Australia) ; Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 365, 1865 (N.S.W. and Tasmania) ; Schlegel, Mus. Pays-Bas, Vol. VI., Anseres, p. 47, 1866 ; Muller, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lend.) 1869, p. 280 ; Newton, ib., 1871, pp. 649, 650 (pt.) figs. 1-2 ; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. I., pp. 195, 216, 219, 1877 (Australia, Tasmania). Mareca punctata Gray, List Birds Brit. Mus., pt. m., p. 134, 1844 ; Bonaparte, Comptes Rendus Sci. (Paris), Vol. XLIII., p. 650, 1856 ; Gray, Handl. Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. m., p. 81, 1871 (N.S.W., W.A., Tas.) ; Heine & Reichenow, Nomencl. Mus. Hein., p. 345, 1890. Querquedula punctata Lichtenstein, Nomencl. Av. Mus. BeroL, p. 102, 1854 (New Holland). Casarca castanea Bonaparte, Comptes Rendus Sci. (Paris), Vol. XLIII., p. 649, 1856. Anas castanea Newton, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1871, p. 649 ; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. II., p. 200, 1878 ; id., ib., Vol. III., pp. 38, 154, 1878; Legge, Pap. and Proc. Roy. Soc. Tasm., 1886, p. 244, 1887 (Tas.) ; id., ib., 1887, p. 97, 1888 (Tas.) ; Ramsay, Tab. List Austr. Birds, p. 22, 1888 (Australia) ; ? North, Austr. Mus. Cat., no. 12, p. 341, 1890 ; Heartland, Viet. Nat., Vol. VII., p. 43, 1890. Nettion castaneum Salvador!, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVII., p. 252, 1895 (Australia, etc.) ; HaU, Key Birds Austr., p. 107, 1899 (Austraha) ; Campbell, Ne^ts and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 1037, 1901 (Australia) ; A. G. Campbell, Emu, Vol. II., p. 209, 1903 (King I.) ; Carter, Emu, Vol. III., p. 212, 1904 (N.W. Cape) ; Littler, ib., p. 216, 1904 (Tas.) ; Legge, ib., Vol. IV., p. 107, 1905 (Tas.) ; HaU, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 107, 1906 (Austraha) ; HiU, Emu, Vol. VII., p. 23, 1907 (Vic.) ; Mattingley, Viet. Nat., Vol. XXV., p. 65, 1908 ; Gibson, Emu, Vol. IX., p. 76, 1909 (S.W.A.) ; HaU, ib., p. 78, 1909 (Vic.) ; Crossman, ib., p. 86, 1909 (Cent. W.A.) ; Hall, ib., p. 133, 1910 (Eyre Peninsula) ; Littler, Handb. Birds Tasm., p. 221, 1910 (Tas.) ; North, Austr. Mus. Spec. Cat., no. 1, Vol. IV„ p. 77, 1913 (Austraha). VOL. IV. * These Plates are lettered Nettion castaneum. 97 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. Nettium castaneum Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 35, 1908 ; id., Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 238, 1912; Orton and Sandland, Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 76, 1913 (WA.). Virago castanea Stejneger, Stand. Nat. Hist. Birds, Vol. IV., p. 145, 1885 (Aus.). Virago castanea castanea Mathews, List Birds Austral., p. 91, 1913 (East Austraha). Range. New South Wales ; Victoria ; Tasmania ; South Austraha ; South and Mid- west Austraha. Adult male. Upper-surface, including the lower hind neck, back, scapulars, rump, and upper tail-coverts dark brown, the feathers on the upper back and short scapulars edged with chestnut, the rump darker and more uniform, upper tail-coverts glossed with metaUic green ; lesser and median upper wing-coverts and long innermost secondaries ohve-brown like the bastard-wing, primary-coverts and quills, the latter darker at the tips, the outer greater coverts broadly tipped with white becoming narrower and mchning to buff on the inner ones ; secondaries velvety black on the outer webs, ohve-brown on the inner ones, tipped with white and with a subterminal hne of buff, two of the inner secondary-quiUs have bright metalhc copper on the outer webs which stand out in bold rehef ; tail-feathers ohve-brown with shghtly paler edges ; entire head and neck dark metalhc green with coppery reflections on the sides of the nape ; lower fore-neck, breast, sides of neck, sides of body, and abdomen rich chestnut with black ovate centres to the feathers which become larger on the sides of the body ; a white patch on each side of the rump, some of the feathers having black tips ; imder tail-coverts black glossed with green ; axiUaries pure white ; under wing-coverts blackish, some of the inner ones tipped with white, greater under wing-coverts ash-brown hke the quiU-hning. BiU black, shghtly mottled with flesh-colour on the under-surface ; iris blood-red ; feet slaty black. Total length 410 mm. ; culmen 42, wing 223, tail 103, tarsus 41. Adult female. Similar to the adult male, but with the white on the flanks and abdomen more pronounced. Wing 209, tail 95, tarsus 39. Immature. Quite different from the adult by being ohve-brown above with whitish edgings to some of the feathers and buff to others : the wing speculum differs in being metalhc green and black instead of metalhc copper ; head brown intermixed with white, the white becoming more extensive on the sides of the face and sides of the neck, and uniform buffy-white on the throat ; fore-neck and breast brown with buff margins to the feathers ; sides of the body ohve-brown broadly fringed with whitish, giving a very coarse pattern ; middle of abdomen less distinctly marked ; under tail-coverts ohve-brown with paler edges ; axiUaries and under wing- coverts similar to those of the adult. From the material in hand it seems that, from the immature described above, the next stage is generaUy much darker above ; the throat becomes streaked and the top of the head glossy ; the breast begins to show some of the redness of the adult, and the rest of the under-surface becomes darker. Nestling (seven days old). Sooty -black above with a longitudinal white hne on each side of the back and white streaks on each side of the body ; a pale hne above and below the eye, also a blackish hne through the eye ; under-surface whitish with a tinge of buff on the cheeks and fore-neck. The nestling of this bird is much darker than that of “ gibberifrons rogersi.” Nest. “ UsuaUy in a hollow tree, but occasionaUy on the ground in grass or other herbage in the vicinity of water ; furnished with a plentiful supply of down. Should the nest be on the ground, fine grass is sometimes intermixed with the fuscous-coloured down, each particle whitish in the centre, and with light- 98 GEEEN-HEADED TEAL. coloured tips. Apparently slightly darker than the nest-down of the Grey Teal. Dimensions : inside, 5 inches across by 2| inches deep ” (Campbell). Eggs. “ Clutch, nine to ten usually, thirteen maximum ; eUiptical in shape ; texture of shell fine ; surface glossy and greasy ; colour, rich cream. Dimensions in inches : 1.9-2.14 X 1.45-1.52 ” (Campbell). Breeding-season. “ June to December ” (Campbell). The confusion between this and the succeeding bird has not yet been unravelled to my satisfaction. A full discussion will be given in connection with the following bird, and it should be here indicated that probably some of the references above given refer to the next species, but that there is no present means of decision. The range and life- history of the two are so confused that I cannot fix definitely to either any of the accounts. I have generally concluded that all recent records of Nettion (or Nettium) castaneum refer to the Green-headed Teal, but of this I cannot even be certain, as I will show later. Early records undoubtedly refer to either, and I have plaeed them in connection with this species simply because it is absolutely impossible accurately to assign them. Mr. J. W. Mellor has written me : “ This teal is not common in South Australia, and in all my wanderings and expeditions I have never shot a male bird with the metallic green head, which I believe is the chief characteristic : in the breeding-season they are here, as I have authentic information from good sources, but if they were common we should undoubtedly see them in the markets and poulterers’ shops just before or after the close season, but this is only occasionally the case.” Mr. Tom Carter’s notes read : “ This species seems to me to be the salt water Teal, as I have not seen them on fresh water. In a large lagoon of sea water surrounded by mangroves near the North-west Cape, there was always a flock or two of these birds. They evidently bred there, as young in down were noted in July, 1900. In June, 1901, ^at this locality, I shot three birds and skinned what seemed to be a ha)ndsome male, as the glossy green head and neck were most pronounced as well as the rich brown breast, but it was an undoubted female on dissection. (See Emu, Vol. II., p. 80, where by a printer’s error, ‘ most ’ is printed ‘not’). One of the other birds that I imagined was a female because it had not the green head and heck proved to be an immature male on dissection. I have noted this species on the Salt River (Pallenup River) to the south-east of Broome Hill ; and on Lake Muir, which is also salt water, it occurs in thousands. I have visited Lake Muir in April and December, when nearly all the bhds seemed to have green 99 THE BIRDS OP AUSTRALIA. heads and necks. One of a pair shot on the Pallenup River on Sept. 27, 1910, was a male with green head and neck. The other bird which had not a green head escaped. I take this species to be quite distinct from N. gihherifrons.^' A. G. Campbell {loc. cit.) : “ This and the preceding species {Anas superciliosa) find much of their food in the kelp on the seashore, and in the shallow water among rocks. They also frequent inland lagoons in company with the other swimmers enumerated, all of which nest on the island (King Island).” North {Austr, Mus. Spec. Cat.y no. 1, Vol. IV., p. 77, 1913) concluded : “ Essentially it is a coastal species, frequenting salt-water lakes and arms of the sea more than inland rivers and lagoons, the latter of which are the favourite haunts of its lesser congener, the Slender or Grey Teal {Nettion gihberifrons). Often the two species may be met with associated together in one large flock near the coast.” In the same place Mr. George Savidge’s notes read : “ The Chestnut- breasted Teal {Anas castanea) was fairly plentifully dispersed about the large swamp on the Lower Clarence River District ; the open water and river courses do not seem to attract it so much as purely swamp country. It is a powerful flier, and looks much larger on the wing than when examined in one’s hand : the flesh is tender and excellent eating.” Again, Keartland contributed to the same work : “ The Chestnut- breasted Teal {Nettion castaneum) is usually found in small flocks or pairs, but are not very numerous anywhere. They prefer fresh water lagoons or rivers. I have seen a few at King’s Island and also at Heidelberg, Victoria. Some time ago I was anxious to ascertain the difference in weight between these birds and the Common Teal {Nettion gihberifrons). The Chestnut-breasted Teal averaged three pounds one ounce per pair, whilst the others only averaged two pounds three ounces. I weighed ten pairs of each species. Gould was in error when he described this bird as the Common Teal in its nuptial dress. When once it assumes its gay livery it never changes back to the sombre garb again. The female is about the same weight as the male, but is somewhat darker in colour than the Common Teal.” Dr. Lonsdale Holden’s notes are printed by North {loc. cit.) : “ On the 9th September, 1886, I saw about a dozen drakes of Anas castanea in fine plumage, and two or three ducks of the same species, in a swamp on Circular Head Peninsula (Tasmania), and approached them within fifteen yards. The drakes have lustrous green heads and necks, and a conspicuous white mark on the upper wing-coverts : the ducks are 100 GREEN-HEADED TEAL. greyish-brown. On the 1st November, 1886, I found a Teal’s nest with eleven fresh eggs, on a swampy plain beyond Montague ; the nest was in a clump of earth growing dwarf tea-tree, and surrounded by shallow water ; little but bare ground formed the bottom of the nest, but was thickly lined with black down with white centres. We flushed the bird from it as we rode across the plain.” Dr. W. Macgillivray says this is the coastal and rogersi the inland bird. The adult male flgured was collected in Tasmania in December, 1862, and the female described above, on the Tamar River in the same Island on the 21st of July, 1912, by Mr. H. G. Thompson, of Launceston, who very kindly gave me the specimen. This female is a most interesting bird, as showing (in conjunction with Carter’s female, see ante) that it is very like the male. Mr. Carter also mentions that in the flocks he saw most of the birds were green headed. Dr. Lonsdale {ante) saw about a dozen drakes and only two or three ducks (immature ?). It is quite possible that collectors have called all green-headed birds males without dissecting them, being carried away by the behef that only the male had a green head. Order ANSEBIF0BME8 No. 264. Family ANATIDJS. VIRAGO GIBBERIFRONS ROGERSI. SLENDER OR GREY TEAL. (Plate 212.)* Nettion castaneum ROGERSI Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 86, 1912 ; North- west Australia. Anas 'punctata (part) Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 365, 1865. Anas gihberifrons Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. II., p. 209, 1877 ; Sclater, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.), 1880, pp. 452, 519, 535; id., ih., 1882, p. 453, pi. 33 ; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., 2nd Ser., Vol. I., p. 1151, 1886 ; id., Tab. List Austr. Birds, p. 22, 1888 ; North, Austr. Mus. Cat., no. 12, p. 342, 1890 ; Keartland, Viet. Nat., Vol. VII., p. 46, 1890; North, Trans. Roy. Soc. S.A., Vol. XXII., p. 190, 1898 (N.W.A.) ; Hartert, Nov. Zool., Vol. XII., p.‘206, 1905 (N.W.A.). Nettion gihberifrons Salvador!, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVII., p. 255, 1895 (part) ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., p. 107, 1899 ; Campbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 1039, 1901 ; Carter, Emu, Vol. III., p. 212, 1904 (N.W. Cape) ; MiUigan, ib., Vol. IV., p. 11, 1904 (S.W. Austr.) ; MeUor, ib., Vol. V., pp. 1, 6, 1905 (N.S.W.) ; HaU, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 107, 1906 ; Berney, Emu, Vol. VI., p. 157, 1907 (N. Queensland) ; Batey, ib., Vol. VII., p. 14, 1907 (Victoria) ; Austin, ib., p. 79, 1907 (N.S.W.) ; HaU, ib., Vol. IX., p. 78, 1909 (Vic.) ; Batey, ib., p. 244, 1910 (Vic.) ; Mathews, Emu, Vol. X., p. 107, 1910 (N.W.A.) ; Broadbent, ib., p. 245 (Queensland); Littler, Handb. Birds Tasm., p. 223, 1910 (Tas.) ; Ogilvie- Grant, Ibis 1910, p. 174 (W.A.) ; Carter, ib., p. 656 (W.A.) ; Stone, Emu, Vol. XII., p. 121, 1912 (Vic.) ; Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 238, 1912 ; White, Emu, Vol. XII., p. 183, 1913 (S.A.) ; North, Austr. Mus. Spec. Cat., no. 1, Vol. IV., p. 79, 1913. Nettium gihberifrons Ingram, Ibis 1907, p. 395 (N. Territory) ; Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 36, 1908 ; White (S. A.), Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 22, 1913 (S.A.) ; Orton and Sandland, ib., p. 76, 1913 (W.A.) ; White, ib., p. 124, 1914 (? Vic.) ; MacgilUvray, ib., p. 147 (N. Queensland) ; Barnard, ib., Vol. XIV., p. 41, 1914 (N. Terr.). Nettion castaneum rogersi Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 86, 1912 (North-west AustraUa). Virago castanea rogersi Mathews, List Birds Austr., p. 91, 1913. Virago gihberifrons White (S. A.), South Austr. Omith., Vol. I., p. 11, 1914 (S.A.). Distribution. Australia ; Tasmania. * The Plate is lettered Nettion rogersi. 102 NETTION ROGERS!. NETTION CASTANEUM. (GREY- TEAL). (TEAL). SLENDER OR GREY TEAL. Adult male. Back and scapulars oKve-brown with huffy-white edgings to the feathers ; the rump darker and more uniform ; lesser and median wing-coverts uniform ohve-brown hke the bastard-wing, primary-coverts and quills, the latter darker at the tips ; outer greater wing-coverts above broadly tipped with white, becoming white on the inner ones ; wing speculum composed of velvety black and dark metaUic blue-green, bordered by a broad band of white on one side and a narrow one on the other ; tail-feathers ohve-brown with pale edges ; head dark brown minutely speckled with white ; sides of face and sides of neck whitish minutely speckled with brown ; chin and throat uniform white ; breast ochreous-bufif with circular bars of brown ; sides of body ohve-brown with' whitish margins to the feathers ; abdomen pale brown with an ochreous tinge, as also the under tail-coverts ; axillaries pure white ; under wing-coverts dark brown, the median series tipped with white, the greater series ohve-grey hke the quill-hning. BiU : upper mandible leaden blue, nail black ; lower mandible leaden brown with a yellowish-white bar near the tip ; iris reddish-brown ; tarsi and feet leaden brown. Total length 460 mm. ; culmen 41, wing 206, tail 85, tarsus 36. Adult feinale. Similar to the adult male. Nest. Placed in a hole in a tree. Eggs. Clutch, five to twelve ; ground-colour creamy ; surface smooth and shghtly glossy. Axis 50 mm. ; diameter 35-36. (Taken on the coast near Rockhampton, Queensland). Breeding-season. Practically aU the year round, after any rain. As stated in connection with the preceding species the references are too confused to admit of accurate separation. The present bird was generally accepted to represent the female of the preceding, and the differences between the two are not yet well known. I shall discuss the exact relationships further on, and here reproduce the field notes written as for the present species. Mr. Tom Carter writes : “ This is one of the commonest ducks in the Mid-west, mostly breeding in hollow spouts of White Gum trees. I have examined scores of nests with eggs in such situations, and shot specimens feeding in the adjacent water, which were of both sexes, and undoubtedly breeding, but I never saw one with the green head and neck of castaneum. Although on different occasions in the sixteen years spent in the Mid-west I have seen many thousands of grey tesli on flooded claypans, river pools and swamps of fresh water, I never saw one with a green neck. The birds appear to lay after any heavy rains, no matter what the month is. In the South-west the grey teal is still a fresh water bird. Every year one or more broods of young are reared in the paddock where my house ‘ Wensleydale ’ is situated. The parent birds bring the young to a large stock tank near the house, and being very tame can be well observed. I have not seen a teal with green neck here, although many times the parent birds accompanied the young. They seem to be later breeders than Anas superciliosa, as Oct. 9, 1908, a pair brought eight young in down to the tank. Oct. 23, 1908. Noted four 103 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. young birds flying with the adults. Nov. 10, 1907. Half-grown young on tank. Dec. 14, 1905. Brood of small young in down with parents on tank. I have seen 26 at a time on stock tank, but never a green head.” Mr. J. W. Mellor adds : “ This is our common teal in South Australia, and is sent into the market in thousands in Adelaide : the colour of the birds does not differ all the vear round. I have noted the hides of the 1/ old bhds a deep blood-red. They love to go in large flocks, and in some instances where they are undisturbed they congregate in thousands in a mob ; theh flight is very swift indeed, and the call of the duck a peculiar little note, cack-cack-cack, repeated in quick sharp succession for about 6 or 8 times, this being especially noticeable while flying swiftly through the ah at night : the drake has a sharp little whistle, repeated in a jerky fashion in answering his mate. While flying, a conspicuous point one notices is the white on the qufll-feathers of the wing which shows out prominently.” Mr. Sandland writes : “ Very plentiful on tanks and very seldom one goes round the tanks without seeing a few. Nested in 1903-1904 (December to February) after an extraordinary thunderstorm, when over six inches of rain fell and there was surface-water for months. Flappers were to be seen in hundreds on every swamp near Balah, South Australia.” Berney, regarding North Queensland, wrote {Emu, Vol. VI., p. 157, 1907) : “ Although of this species and the former {Anas superciliosa) the Teal is more commonly seen, I have only on one occasion come across evidence of its nesting here. On the 12th April, 1906, I saw an old bird with six ducklings in the down. They will average a pound weight, going up to a pound and a quarter.” Macgillivray {Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 147, 1914) added : “ This Duck was very numerous on the lakes at Sedan and Byromine, N. Queensland, and nesting freely in the hollow trees. The nests contained from five to twelve eggs, the average clutch being seven or eight. Eggs were nearly all hard-set at the end of March, 1910.” North’s remarks {Austr. Mus. Spec. Cat., no. 1, Vol. IV., p. 80, 1913) read : “ Although found in Northern Australia, the Slender Teal is more abundantly distributed throughout the eastern and south-eastern portion of the continent. In New South Wales it is without exception the most common species of the family Anatidce, and is met with throughout the year. It frequents the same situations as its congener Nettion castaneum — rivers, swamps and lagoons both near the coast and inland. Thousands of these birds are shot every year, but without any apparent diminution of their numbers, judging by the enormous flocks to be seen inland. 104 SLENDER OR GREY TEAL. especially after a heavy rainfall. They are exceedingly tame and easy to approach before disturbed by too much shooting.” T. P. Austin {loc. cit.) noted : “ The Grey Teal {Nettion gibberifrons) is probably the most common of all Ducks ; it is usually found in large flocks and is tolerably tame. Their call-note when flying is usually a cackling squawk, but when swimming it is a single note, which is more of a squeak uttered at intervals of a few minutes. They are moderately fast fliers, but as a rule do not fly as fast as some of the other Ducks.” In the same place Keartland’s notes are : “ The Common Teal {Nettion gibberifrons) may be found in all parts of Australia. It matters little whether the water is fresh or salt, the Teal is equally at home in fresh- water creeks, lagoons, rivers, and swamps, or on the seacoast and salt lakes.” At my suggestion Captain S. A. White has written a note on the relationships of this and the preceding species in the South Australian Ornithologist, Vol. I., pp. 11-12, 1914, which is here reprinted in extenso : “ A discussion arose lately about these birds, and I was surprised to hear that some were still under the impression that they were but one species, and that the grey birds were the same as the Chestnut, only out of plumage or immature. Furthermore, I have been requested to express my opinion on the subject through the pages of this journal. I may state that there is not a shadow of doubt in my mind about their being two distinct species and good ones at that. My remarks are those of a field ornithologist. I leave the osteology of these birds to more able minds. Firstly, the Eastern Teal, Mountain Teal, or Chestnut-breasted Teal, whatever you like to call it in the vernacular, known to science as Virago castanea {Mareca castanea Eyton, Monograph Anat., p. 119, 1838, N.S.W.) and described by John Gould as Anas punctata {Birds of Australia, Vol. VII., pt. II., 1845), is a heavier bird than the grey species, and not nearly so common. One could safely say, as far as South Australian water4 are concerned, that for every one of the Chestnut species one would see a hundred or more of the grey birds. It is true a few birds may be seen mixed up with the vast flocks of Grey Teal, but this I have always put down to the fact of their having been driven ofl from their kind and their haunts by sportsmen and other factors, and for the time have attached , themselves to the ranks of their grey cousins. This I think I can prove later on. F. castanea is a beautiful bird in full plumage, especially the male bird, the bronzy-green head and neck shining in the bright sunlight with great brilliance. The female always shows the rufous tinge more or less VOL. IV. 105 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. on the breast. These birds do not move about in large flocks in South Australia ; about a dozen is as many as I have seen in one locality. If they can get it they prefer a stony or gravelly beach to the soft muddy swamps. I have seen them swimming in deep water off a rocky shore, but have never seen them diving for their food, although I have an idea they do so. They have a great liking for resting on boulders and rocks: thus, I think, the origin of the name ‘ Mountain Teal.’ About 16 years ago, during a big drought in the interior, thousands of ducks visited the Reed-beds, and amongst them was a fair sprinkling of the teal under notice. This is the only time I have known them to visit the swamps here. They seem to prefer the large open waters, and frequent the rocky shores if there be such. There is no doubt John Gould took these two species to be one, for he speaks of having met them in great numbers {Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 365). He goes on to say that it is very rare that a male is killed in the nuptial dress, and he is induced to believe that it is not assumed until the bird is two or three years old. One can understand Gould must have been very puzzled, seeing so few of the Chestnut-coloured birds in comparison to the Grey birds. “ Virago gibherifrons nest in great numbers in the interior during wet seasons, many hundreds nesting together amongst the salt bush and Polygonum swamps, but I have never heard of the Chestnut species nesting with them. Only a few nests of the latter have ever come under my notice, and they were placed in hollow limbs of trees. I have seen many nests of Grey Teal in trees, and here at the Reed-beds they once nested nearly every year, but never once did I see F. castanea nesting. In February 1912 mj^ wife and I made a trip to Lakes Alexandrina and Albert, and spent some little time on the waters there, making very many useful observations. We were very fortunate in having the services of Mr. Fred. Ayres, a man who has passed the better part of his life shooting game for the market, and he has a wonderful store of knowledge pertaining to the habits of the wild-fowl. I was very pleased to find that my observations Avere confirmed in reference to these teal. While we were on the lakes and amongst the swamps along their shores we saw vast fiocks of F. gibberifrons, but not one F. castanea, and when I mentioned this to our guide he at once said, ‘ If you want Mountain Teal we must steam over to the rockv shores at the other side of the lake.’ And I found t/ this to be correct. Seeing that these birds have distinct habits and that both have been found breeding, the Grey Teal in vast numbers without a single Chestnut bird amongst them, surely this alone must dispel any doubt upon the subject.” 106 SLENDER OR GREY TEAL. Gould’s account, noted by Capt. White above, had better be here transcribed. “ The Anas punctata is universally diffused over the southern portion of Australia ; it is also equally numerous in some parts of Tasmania. It is not migratory, but may be met with during every month of the year. . . . Like the Wild Duck and Teal of Europe, this bird inhabits rivers, brooks, lagoons, and ponds, both inland and near the sea. It is a true grass-feeder, and is one of the best Ducks for the table found in the country. When surprised it rises quickly, but is less active than the European Teal ; it is, however, a bird of powerful flight. I frequently met with it in vast flocks while ascending the little-visited rivers of the southern part of Tasmania, particularly those which empty themselves into Recherche Bay. In these retired and solitary retreats it is much more tame than in frequented situations, and never failed to fly down the rivers over our heads as we ascended ; a measure which, although at the first view it appears to be that of flying into the danger it wished to avoid, was in fact the readiest means of escaping ; for had it taken the opposite course it would have required great exertion to surmount the impenetrable forest of high trees, rising perpendicularly from the water’s edge, in which these short and sluggish rivers usually terminate. It is very rare that the male is killed in the nuptial dress, and I am induced to believe that it is not assumed until the bird is two or three years old ; after the breeding-season the sexes are alike in plumage, and for at least nine months of the year there is no difference in their outward appearance. . . . There appear to be two very distinct races of this bird, one of which is much larger than the other ; so great in fact is the difference in this respect in specimens from various parts of the country, that the idea presents itself of their being reaUy distinct species. The smaller race inhabits Tasmania, the larger the western and southern portions of Australia.” This note is the first indication or suggestion of the presence of two species of Teal in Australia. In 1869, BuUer described as a new , species under the name Anas gracilis a small bird procured in New Zealand. It was immediately pointed out that this was probably the same bird described from Celebes in 1842 by S. Muller as Anas gihberifrons, and also that the same bird occurred in Australia ; other authorities contended it was the immature or female of Anas castanea (Eyton). When Ramsay drew up his List of Australian Birds {Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. II., 1877) he only admitted one form on p. 200, as Anas (Virago) castanea. On p. 209 he, however, gave the following note "'Anas gihberifrons. I have never met with this species, although said to have been obtained both in North and South Australia,* which I think 107 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. very improbable. I here transcribe Mr. Bnller’s description (of A. gracilis BuUer, Ibis 1869, pp. 41-2) for the benefit of our readers, trusting should any of them meet with the bird in the flesh, they whl not fail to record the full 'particulars of its capture in our Proceedings. * Ibis 1869, note pp. 42, 380 ; also Ibis 1870, p. 459.” Later Ramsay recognised the two species and admitted both in the Tabular List in 1888. The differences between the two species was, however, not clearly defined, although it was due to Sclater’s notes on Australian birds in the Zoological Gardens, London, that the two were commonly admitted. When Salvadori monographed the Ducks in the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVII., he admitted his inability to define the two species, recognising on p. 252 Nettion castaneuin with a range of Australia, New Zealand, and New Caledonia (?) and as a straggler in Celebes and Java, and on p. 254 {Nettion gibberifrons) he wrote ; “ This species is absolutely similar to the supposed female of N. castanewn, both in colour and dimensions, so that I am utterly unable to distinguish it ; still it seems quite certain that they are not identical, as birds in the plumage of Anas gibberifrons have bred, and, perhaps, are still breeding, in the Zoological Gardens of London. ... We must wait for additional information in order to settle the question of the specific differences between N. castanemn and N. gibberifrons. Hob. Celebes, Java, Timor, Flores, Sumba, and if N. castanemn be not distinct, also Southern New Guinea, Australia, New Zealand and New Caledonia.” Such admission from such an accurate investigator as Count Salvadori shows how difficult a subject this is to deal with from examination of skins. As will be later noted, one Australian ornithologist solved the problem by weighing the dead birds, but this method cannot be applied to bird skins ! Hall, in his Key, quoted Salvadori’s first remark without any comment. Campbell commented {Nests and Eggs, p. 1039) : “ Field observers and collectors now have no doubt about the existence of this second variety of Teal in Australia. Some systematists appear to entertain a doubt.” Then he quoted Count Salvadori’s remarks and added: “Mr. G. A. Heartland, having weighed two species of Teal in the flesh, has kindly furnished me with the average results : — Chestnut Teal : male 1 lb. 9 oz. ; female 1 lb. 8 oz. Grey Teal : male 1 lb. 2 oz. ; female 1 lb. 1 oz. This is evidence that seems to speak for itself. The Count could find no difference between the females. According to the above figures lliere is nearly a third difference in the weights.” 108 SLENDER OR GREY TEAL. Writing upon the Ducks of Victoria, Hall {Emu^ Vol. IX., p. 78, 1909) gave the following notes : “ Nettion castaneum. As with the Black Duck it is the earliest of the local species to pair and nest. In their feeding- grounds they prefer plenty of mud in which to paddle their bill. They feed largely upon a small red beetle, which they pick from the blades of water weeds. No liking is shown for spiders. “ Nettion gibherifrons. I could not decide the species when on the wing.” Under the heading Teal {Nettion castaneum Eyton), Littler {Handb. Birds Tasm., p. 222, 1910) recorded : “ Doubtless there are but few who are aware that two species of Teal exist in Tasmania, most being under the impression that the species so much in evidence in a number of localities during the ‘ open ’ season is the only one found here. The species under review is on the mainland frequently called the Mountain Teal. It is a scarce species in Tasmania, or at least the males are but seldom procured. I have inspected specimens from the Lake district and am informed on good authority that it frequents several localities on the North-east coast ; doubtless it is also to be found in the southern portion of the island. “ To verify my own observations concerning the two species, I forwarded to Mr. A. J. Campbell a set of questions, which I now give, with his answers appended thereto, thinking they may be of interest : — “ Q. Does the male of the Chestnut-breasted Teal retain its black head and neck and chestnut breast during the non-breeding season ? ‘‘ A. Yes. [I believe that once the male of this species dons his full livery he never throws it off ; but I also believe that many males breed before they have attained full livery.] “ Q. Is the breeding plumage of both sexes of the Grey Teal similar to the non-breeding plumage ? “ A. Yes. “ Q. Are there any outward differences between the female of the Chestnut-breasted Teal and the female of the Grey Teal ? “A. None, except in weight. Chestnut, IJ lbs.; Grey, lA^ lbs. “ Q. Are both sexes of the Grey Teal similar in appearance ? “ A. Yes.” A careful study of the preceding will show that however easily field ornithologists may have differentiated the two species, not one of them had devised a method of proving his observations, as Keartland’s method was practically impossible. It may also be noted that no two agree as to the constant habits of the different species, for whereas Mr. Tom Carter, whose field observations are absolutely reliable, recognised the Chestnut- 109 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. breasted Teal as a salt-water bird only, Capt. S. A. White, who is equally reliable, writing as a field ornithologist, concluded exactly the opposite. Campbell seemed surprised at the systematises doubts, but if anyone will carefully analyse what I have collated, there should be no doubt as to the systematises puzzle. Examination of my own material in conjunction with that which Count Salvadori studied when cataloguing the collection in the British Museum and the additional material was not sufficient to differentiate the two species. I concluded, however, that the Northern birds were probably separable and described the North-western bird thus : “ The adult male differs from the adult female of N. c. castanewn in being considerably lighter on the head and back, and in having the centre of the feathers on the under-surface not so dark.” In endeavouring to define the exact limits of these forms for this place, I had to start once more at the beginning as the additional material which had come to hand did not confirm my earlier disposition. I am compelled to admit that I cannot yet confidently assert that I know all about these birds and their inter-relationships. I propose, therefore, that my conclusions be considered of a tentative character only. Meyer and Wiglesworth [Birds of Celebes^ Vol. II., 1898, pp. 874-878) fully discussed this matter as it occurred to them. N. gihherifrons was described from Celebes, and after giving full details of the varied opinions, wrote: “ Our own conclusion in the matter is (1) that N. gihberifrons is a species perfectly distinct from N. castaneum^ as is proved by Dr. Sclater; (2) that there is no sound evidence to show that N. castaneum has ever occurred outside of Australia and Tasmania.” They gave measurements of Celebes birds as follows : — Wing. Tail. Tarsus. M.t. and claw. Exp. culm. 2 . • 184 77-80 34 45-47 34-37 ? .. 182 81 34 44 35 Unsexed 178-185 80 32-37 44-^7 34-38 9 Unsexed . 172-190 77-89 32-36 44-51 34-38.5 In the British Museum there is quite a nice series from Celebes and E. Timor, the measurements of which are as follows : — Exp. M.t. alone. culm. Breadth, Makassar 192 34 39 37 X 16.5 Celebes 3 specs. . . 182-185 33-35 38 33-36 X 14-16 Flores 200 37 39 37 X 15.5 E. Timor 3^ . . 186-200 36-37.5 38-39 36-37 X 12-16 E. Timor 4 $ . . 173-199 34-37.5 38-40 34-37 X 12-14 no SLENDER OR GREY TEAL. These figures appear to me very instructive, as, so far as is known, no green-headed birds occur on the Islands north of Australia, consequently these must aU be referable to the Grey Teal. Celebes is the type-locality and we notice there is variation there, but it might be suggested, as there is only one sexed male and three unsexed all smaller, that the latter may be females and therefore smaller. The East Timor series, however, dismisses that doubt, as all the seven were collected and sexed by the same man, the variation is seen weU, both sexes varying equally, the females being as large as the males. This disposes of one theory that the males were larger than the females. I have given the width of the bill, as it seemed at times that the bill was longer and thinner in certain cases, but here again the East Timor series settled that theory, both males and females having equally long and thin or short and thick bills without any apparent difference. Other features varied also, as the metatarsal length. I have laid stress on measurements as colour seemed valueless, almost all the Timor and Celebes birds being light compared with a very dark supposed female of N. castaneum from Tasmania, but one Celebes bird was darker, and the Tasmanian bird was unique in its dark colour, all other Australian birds being comparatively lighter. The confusion existent in connection with Australian birds made it difficult to get accurate comparison, but a series from inland Western Australia, which should be unquestionably this species, according to Mr. Tom Carter’s observations, gave : — Exp. Wing. Tarsus. M.t. alone. culm. Breadth. ^ ad. 194 38 40 39 X 14 ad. 199 38 40 37 X 14 $ juv. . . 194 37 39 38 X 14 37 X 15 \\ • • • !> 198 36 38 $ juv. . . 193 35 37 35 X 14 The constancy of these measurements and the steady decrease in the Juveniles confirms the conclusion that there is no difference in size between male and female of this species, but simply individual variation. I regard aU color variation as also individual and neither sexual nor specific. A pair collected together in Victoria confirm this : — d 209 37 39 $ 186 37 39 38 X 14 38 X 15 111 THE BIEDS OF AUSTKALIA. I conclude, therefore, that the Australian birds are larger than Celebes birds, in which I am in agreement with Meyer and Wiglesworth, and I use for them my subspecific name rogersi. Buller named a straggler to New Zealand Anas gracilis, but it is possible that this specimen came from or through New Caledonia, and it is not yet determined what the New Caledonian bird is ; for this reason I prefer to use the name given to an Australian bird which is more applicable. Having decided that N. gihherifrons and N. castaneMm are separable, how do they differ ? I suggest that the latter s'pecies has the male and feinale alike in coloration when adult. Mr. Tom Carter has recorded how he sexed a perfectly plumaged green-headed bird and found it to be a feinale. Campbell records that the bird fiushed from the nest, whence he first described the eggs, was in fuU nuptial plumage. It might have been a female. I have in my collection a specimen collected and sexed in Tasmania by H. C. Thompson, and it is a female in the green-headed stage. Probably the majority of collectors have fahed to sex their birds but simply placed ^ against aU green-headed birds without dissection. I have discussed this matter with Mr. Tom Carter and he acknow- ledges that all the birds in the mangroves in the Mid-west were green- headed, and also huge fiocks of birds, all green-headed, were constantly observed on Lake Muir. In the green-headed stage this bird is much larger than the Grey Teal and is then quite easily differentiated. How can immatures be separated ? is now the question. This is the problem and it cannot be settled by weighiug birds : some more practical mode must be suggested. The distribution of the two species would seem to show that the green-headed bird is strictly southern, the North-west Cape and north New South Wales being its northern limits, while the other species goes all over Australia and Tasmania and is the only species found north of the Tropics. The explanation of the evolution of the green-headed species cannot be given until the plumage stages of both species are clearly understood. To this end careful collections must be made where these birds are numerous, and especially where the two species are considered to live in distinct habitats. Thus Mr. Tom Carter is confident that no Grey Teal occur with the Green-headed Teal among the mangroves near the North- west Cape, and Capt. S. A. White only recognises the Grey Teal on the swampy lowland places as above noted. I assert that no discrimination 112 SLENDER OR GREY TEAL. is possible without long series being collected under the most favourable conditions. In North Queensland again the Grey Teal appears to be only found. The study of a series from this locality would tend to limit the exact variation in size and coloration due to sex and age. I have here recognised — Virago castanea (Eyton). The Green-headed Teal. Male and female alike in full adult plumage : immature plumage probably similar to adult of succeeding species. Virago gihberifrons rogersi (Mathews). The Grey Teal. Male and female alike all the year round, and resembling the immature plumage ; no brilliant plumage ever taken on. The former confined to the South of Australia, ranging from North-west Cape to north New South Wales and Tasmania. The latter ranging all over Australia, quite commonly in the North, and Tasmania. The bird figured and described is a male and was collected at Parry’s Creek, North-west Australia, on the 13th of February, 1909, by Mr. J. P. Rogers. VOL. IV. 113 Genus— Q UEEQUEDULA. Queequedula Stephens, in Shaw’s Gen. Zool., Vol. XII., pt. II., p. 142, 1824 . . . . Type Q. querquedula. Also spelt — Quesquedida Brandt, in Tchihatcheff’s Voy. Sci. Altai Orient, p. 446, 1845. Cyanopterus Eyton, Monogr. Anatidse, p. 38, 1838 (Not Cyanopterus 1835) .. .. .. .. Type Q. querquedula. Pterocyanea Bonaparte, Icon. Faun. Ital. Ucc. Introd., p. 17, 1841 . . . . . . . . . , . . Type Q. querquedula. Small Anatine birds agreeing well in structural characters with Anas but smaller, and the male differently coloured. The bill agrees in structure with that of Anas, and is longer than the metatarsus or middle toe. The wing has the first primary longest, in Anas the second is slightly the longest. The tail is short. The metatarsus has a single row of scutes on the front and is shorter than the middle toe or culmen. The middle toe is longer than the metatarsus but is shorter than the culmen. The hind toe is smaU and narrowly lobed. This genus, admitted in the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVII., can scarcely be differentiated from Nettion. The only character given is “ Upper wing-coverts blue or bluish-grey ” against “ Upper wing-coverts not blue, but of a more or less dark grey.” Examination of specimens show that the bill in Querquedula is comparatively broader and deeper than in Nettion, and the toes a little longer. The two genera are distinguished by American Ornithologists, but the distinction is so slight that Baird, Brewer and Ridgway {Water Birds North Amer., Vol. I., p. 487, '1884) wrote: “Small, like Nettion, but bill longer (longer than the head), broader, less depressed, the culmen decidedly convex anteriorly, lesser wing-coverts pale dull blue : nape without a tuft.” If the two genera be united, which seems inevitable to me, the name here used must be preserved as it is the oldest. 114 Order ANSEBIF0RME8 No. 265. Family ANATIDM. QUERQUEDULA QUERQUEDULA HUMERALIS. EASTERN GARGANEY TEAL. Anas (querqubditla) humeealis Muller, Verb. Nat. Gesch. Land en Volkenk, p. 159, 1842 ; JavE. Querquedula circia Campbell, Viet. Nat., Vol. XV., p. 151, 1899 ; id., Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 1042, 1901 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 114, 1906. Querquedula querquedula Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 36, 1908. Querquedula querquedula humeralis Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 238, 1912 ; id., List Birds Austr., p. 92, 1913. Distribution. India southwards to Java ; Australia (accidental). Adult male. Crown of head dark brown narrowly edged with chestnut, fore-part of the head minutely streaked with white, becoming chocolate-brown on the fore-head ; sides of the face, sides of neck, and fore-neck chocolate-brown with minute white shaft lines ; chin dark brown ; entire breast buffy-white barred with brown ; sides of the body dusky brown barred with white ; ornamental flank feathers white narrowly barred with black, the long ones broadly tipped with lead-grey ; upper abdomen white, lower abdomen and vent faintly and narrowly barred with grey ; under tail-coverts also white with ovate brown spots ; axillaries and inner under wing-coverts pure white ; lesser under wing-coverts pale ash-grey ; a broad white Hne along the sides of the crown on to the sides of the nape which almost meets on the hind-neck ; mantle and back dark brown with paler brown edges to the feathers and which become blue-grey on the rump ; outer scapulars pale grey, inner ones glossy green with white shaft streaks ; lesser wing-coverts uniform pale grey ; greater upper wing-coverts broadly tipped with white ; bastard-wing pale brown ; primary-coverts also pale brown with whitish margins to the outer webs ; primary-quiUs dark brown with white shafts and pale inner webs ; second- aries pale brown with metalhc green on the outer webs and white tips which form wing-bars, the inner secondaries dark brown with pale edges ; upper tail-cf^verts dark brown with whitish edges to the feathers. Bill black ; iris hazel ; feet brownish. Total length 358 mm. ; culmen 39, wing 190, tail 64, tarsus 31. Adult female. Differs from the adult male chiefly by the absence of the chocolate-brown on the sides of the face and fore-neck, the dark brown spot on the chin, this part being white, the ornamental feathers on the scapulars and the fine barring on the lower abdomen. Bill blackish-brown tinged with green ; iris brown ; feet dull plumbeous. Total length 325 mm. ; culmen 35, wing 147, tail 62, tarsus 30. Immature male. Is similar in many respects to the adult female but more boldly marked and may be distinguished by the indication of barring on the abdomen, the pale grey of the upper wing-coverts and the wing speculum. Another specimen in similar plumage, to the one cited above, shows an approach of dark feathers on the chin. 115 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. A third specimen which is much more advanced towards the adult plumage but lacks the chocolate-brown of the face, throat and fore-neck, these parts being white streaked with brown ; the brown and buff markings on the chest are more irregular and squamate in form. Nest. A depression in the ground. Eggs. Clutch, ten to twelve ; ground-colour huffish ; axis 45 mm. ; diameter 30. This species was added to the Australian List by Campbell on account of two specimens shot by Mr. Wm. Shaw at Lake Connewarre, Victoria, in March or April, 1896. No evidence can be found that would lead to the fact that these were escaped captive birds, though of course this is strongly suggested. In the meanwhile, until other specimens are procured, this species should be placed on a Hypothetical List. I do not therefore recognise it fully as an Australian bird and have not given a plate but have given a full description so that it would easily be recognised if again met with. The birds described were collected in India in 1898-9. 116 \ Genus— S P A T U L A . Spatula Boie, Isis 1822, p. 564 pt. n., p. 114, 1824 Also spelt — Rhinaspis Bonaparte, Isis 1832, p. 1186. Rynchaspis Brehm, Vogelfang, p. 377, 1855. Rhynchasmus Koenig, Joiun. fur. Om., 1893, p. 104. Also spelt — Spatvlea Salvador!, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVII., p. 306, Clypeata Lesson, Manuel d’Orn., Vol. II., p. 1828 Souchets “ Cuv. 1817 ” Gray, Handl. Gen. Sp. pt. III., p. 84, 1871. Type S. clypeata. XII., Type S. clypeata. 1828 Type S. clypeata. 1895. 416, * - Type 8. clypeata. Birds, • • Type 8. clypeata. Anatine birds of medium size with characteristic very long broad bill, much broader than deep : otherwise structurally the species of this genus closely resemble those of Anas. The bill is very long, much longer than the head and about twice the length of the metatarsus ; the bill is high and narrow at its base, the upper mandible spreading out into a broad flattened apical portion, with small well-defined overhanging tip : the culmen ridge fairly ^yell marked, the nostrils situated high up, near base of bill close together on either side of the culmen ridge. The sides of the mandible are for half-way deeply cut into, showing a well-developed long comb which is still present though overhung by expansion of the sides on the anterior portion. The lower mandible is narrow at the base and broader anteriorly to correspond with expansion present in upper mandible ; the rami are almost parallel enclosing bare space, and reaching almost to the end, leaving a very small flattened nail which fits into the nail of the\ upper mandible. The depth of bill, at the base is about one-third its length, while its breadth is only about a quarter : at two-thirds the length from the base the bill is broadest and is then almost half its length. The wing is long with first primary longest. The tail is comparatively long with pointed feathers, about one-third the length of the wing, and longer than the bill. The metatarsus is about half the length of the culmen and is scutellated anteriorly on frontal face, but otherwise reticulate. The toes are long and fully webbed, the middle toe being longer than the metatarsus ; the hind toe is rather long and narrowly lobed. 117 Order ANSERIF0BME8 No. 266. Family ANATIDM. SPATULA CLYPEATA INDIANA. EASTERN SHOYELER. Spatula clypeata Indiana Mathews, Austral Av. Ree., Vol. I., p. 194, 1913 ; India. Spatula clypeata (not Linne) Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 370, 1865 ; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. II., p. 200, 1878 ; id.. Tab. List. Austr. Birds, p. 22, 1888 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., p. 107, 1899 ; Campbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 1043, 1901 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 107, 1906 ; Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 36, 1908 ; id., Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 238, 1912. Spatula clypeata indiana Mathews, List Birds Austr., p. 92, 1913. Distribution. India; East Asia southward to the Malay Archipelago ; (??) accidental in Austraha. Adult male. Head and neck glossy green with bluish reflections, becoming brown near the base of the bill and black on the centre of the throat and middle of the crown ; fore-neck, sides of neck, and short scapulars white ; a narrow line of brown feathers down the hind-neck which joins with the mantle and upper back, becoming darker on the lower back, rump, and upper tail-coverts, all of which are more or less glossed wdth green ; lesser upper wdng-coverts and outer scapulars blue-grey ; greater coverts dark brown broadly tipped with white, more narrowly on the inner ones ; bastard-wing, primary-coverts and quills pale browm darker towards the tips of the latter and with white shafts ; outer webs of outer secondaries dark metalhc-green, which forms a wing speculum ; innermost secondaries and some of the scapulars velvety black broadly centred with white ; tail dark brown becoming paler on the outer feathers which are broadly margined with white ; breast, sides of the body and abdomen chestnut, shghtly barred with black ; a white patch on each side of the rump ; under tail-coverts greenish-black more or less mottled with white ; axillaries and under wing-coverts white. Bill lead-colour ; iris yellow ; feet orange-red. Total length 500 mm. ; culmen 66, wing 232, tail 67, tarsus 37. Adult female. Distinguished from the adult male chiefly by the absence of the green on the head, the white on the fore-neck, the green wing speculum, the ornamental scapulars, and the chestnut on the under-surface. Immature male. Similar to the female but much darker above with buff margins to the feathers, instead of white, a green wing speculum, and the under-surface more ochreous-buff. Nest. A depression in the ground. Eggs. Clutch, ten to twelve ; ground-colour greenish ; axis 52 mm. ; diameter 38. GoTJiiD added this species to the Australian List with the following account : “ Although I have no Australian skin of this species to confirm the following 118 EASTEEN SHOVELEE. remarks, I must ask my ornithological readers both in Australia and Europe to take my word for the occasional appearance of the bird in Australia. When I visited New South Wales during the rainy season of 1839, all the depressed parts of the land were filled with water, and the lagoons here, there, and everywhere were tenanted by hundreds of Ducks of various species, and every now and then one, two, or more beautifully plumaged Shovelers were seen among them ; but I did not succeed in shooting one of them, and must have left the matter in doubt as to the particular species, if the late Mr. Coxen, of Yarrundi, had not had the skin of a splendid old male in his possession, which he had himself shot, and which, after a careful examination, I found to be identical with the Spatula clypeata of Britain and the European continent. Misfortune, I regret to say, attended Mr. Coxen’s specimen, for a day or two afterwards a rat or some other kind of vermin entered the room in which it was kept, ate off its bill and legs, and so otherwise mutilated the skin as to render it useless. The debris would still have been saved had I not hoped and felt assured of obtaining other examples with my gun : this hope, however, was never realised. “ To this subject, therefore, I recommend the attention of those in Australia, who will doubtless meet with the bird some day when the country is subject to a partial inundation. That this species should extend its wanderings to Australia is not a matter of surprise, when we know that it has been found within the Tropics both in the Old and New Worlds.” Campbell, sixty years after the date of the first occurrence, knew of no further record, but notes that a correspondent wrote him regarding a strange bird shot at Jandilla, Queensland, some years previously, which he concluded might have been a European Shoveler. Until fresh evidence is forthcoming this bird cannot be admitted to the Australian List, though it is quite probable that careful watching might reveal a rare straggler ; I have therefore given detailed description Whereby such could be recognised. The male bird described was collected in Assam, on the 2nd of April, 1905. 119 * Order AN8ERIF0BME8 Family ANATID^. No. 267. SPATULA RHYNCHOTIS RHYNCHOTIS. AUSTRALIAN SHOYELER. (Plate 213.) Anas rhynchotis Latham, Index Ornith. Suppl., p. Ixx., 1801 ; New South Wales. New Holland Shoveler Latham, Gen. Synops. Birds, Suppl, II., p. 359, 1801 ; id., Gen. Hist. Birds, Vol X., p. 313, 1824. Anas rhynchotis Latham, Index Ornith. Suppl, p. Ixx., 1801 ; Lesson, Traite d’Orn., p. 633, 1831 ; Schlegel, Mus. Pays-Bas, Vol VI., Anseres, p. 35, 1866. Rhynchaspis rhynchotis Stephens in Shaw’s Gen. Zool, Vol. XII., pt. ii., p. 123, 1824 ; Eyton, Monogr. Anat., p. 133, 1838; id., Proc. Zool Soc. (Lond.), 1839, p. 114; Bonaparte, Comptes Rendus Sci. (Paris), Vol. XLIII., p. 650, 1856. Rhynchaspis maculatus (not Gould) Eyton, Monogr. Anat., p. 134, 1838. Spatula rhynchotis Gray, Annals Mag. Nat. Hist., Vol. XI., p. 194, 1843 ; id.. List Birds Brit. Mus., pt. m., p. 140, 1844 ; id.. Genera Birds, Vol. III., p. 618, 1845 ; Gould, Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 12, 1845 ; Reichenbach, Synops. Av. Natat., pi. 110, fig. 980, 1845 ; pi. 86, figs. 2334-5, 1850 ; Stokes Discov. in Austr., Vol. I., App., p. 483, 1846 ; Sturt, Narr. Exped. Centr. Austr., Vol. II., App., p. 56, 1849 ; Gould, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.), 1856, p. 95 ; id., Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 368, 1865 ; Pelzeln, Reise Novara Vogel, p. 139, 1865 ; Gray, Hand!. Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. m., p. 85, 1871 ; Higgles, Birds Austr., Vol. II., pi. 112, 1877 ; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. II., p. 200, 1877 ; Sclater, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.), 1880, p. 523 ; Baird, Brewer and Ridgway, Water Birds North Amer., Vol. I., p. 525, 1884; Legge, Papers and Proc. Roy. Soc. Tasm., 1886, p. 244, 1887 ; id., ib., 1887, p. 97, 1888 ; Ramsay, Tab. List Austr. Birds, p. 22, 1888 ; North, Austr. Mus. Cat., no. 12, p. 343, 1890 ; Heine and Reichenow, Nomencl. Mus. Hein., p. 347, 1890; Hartert, Katal Vogels Mus. Senckenb., p. 232, 1891; Salvador!, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVII., p. 314, 1895 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., p. 108, 1899; Campbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 1044, 1901 ; Carter, Emu, Vol. III., p. 212, 1904 ; Legge, Emu, Vol. IV., p. 108, 1905 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 108, 1906 ; Berney, Emu, Vol. VI., p. 157, 1907 ; Batey, ih., Vol. VII., p. 14, 1907 ; Austin, ih., p. 79, 1907 ; Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral, p. 36, 1908 ; Hall, Emu, Vol. IX., p. 77, 1909 ; id., ih., p. 133, 1910 ; Broadbent, ih., Vol. X., p. 245, 1910 ; Littler, Handb. Birds Tasm., p. 223, 1910 ; Stone, Emu, Vol XII., p. 121, 1912 ; White, ih., p. 183, 1913 ; id., ih., Vol XIII., p. 23, 1913 ; North, Austr. Mus, Spec. Catal, no. 1, Vol. IV,, p. 82, 1913 ; White, Emu, Vol XIII.. p. 124, 1914 ; Barnard, ih., Vol XIV,, p. 41, 1914. 120 SPATULA RHYNCHOTIS. /AC/^STJi/lLMlV SHOVELER;. AUSTEALIAN SHOVELER. ? Spatula variegata North, Rec. Austr. Mus., Vol. II., p. 37, 1892 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., p. 108, 1899. Spatula rJiynchotis rhynchotis Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 238, 1912 ; id., List Birds Austr., p. 92, 1913. Distribution. Queensland ; New South Wales ; Victoria ; Tasmania ; South Australia ; South-west Austraha. Adult male. Hinder face, sides of nape, and sides of the neck glossy greyish-green; chin, fore-head, lores, and crown of head dark brown with chestnut margins to the feathers ; a vertical line of white on the fore-part of the cheeks ; back dark brown with pale edges to the feathers, some of the scapulars barred and lin ed with white ; lesser wing-coverts blue-grey like the outer webs of some of the long scapulars ; median-coverts broum broadly tipped with white which forms a wing-bar ; bastard-wing, primary-coverts and quiUs dark brown, the latter with white shafts ; outer webs of the outer secondaries dark metallic -green with black tips which incloses a wing speculum, the long innermost secondaries glossy greenish-brown with pale shaft hnes ; lower back, rump, and upper tail-coverts black glossed with green ; tail dark brown, the outer feathers paler and margined with white ; sides of rump white barred and vermiculated with green ; entire under- surface dark chestnut barred with black : under tail-coverts black glossed with green ; axillaries and under wing-coverts white ; iris bright yellow ; feet bright orange, bill black. Total length 540 mm. ; culmen 60, wing 250, tail 83, tarsus 37. Adult female. Distinguished by the speckled appearance on the sides of the face, throat, and fore-neck, and by the absence of the dark chestnut on the under-surface; iris greenish-brown ; feet yeUow ; biU yeUowish-green, with black spots. Nest. A shght hollow, lined with down and placed on the ground. Eggs. Clutch, four to seven ; ground-colour creamy-white, shghtly glossy ; axis 49-53 mm. ; diameter 37-38. Breeding-season. “ August to November ” (Campbell). Though this bird was described by Latham, little of its life-history is yet known. Captain S. A. White states : “ The ‘ Shovellers ’ were found in every part of the lake (Alexandrina) and passage ; they seem to dive a lot for their food. Strange to say, 70 to 80 per cent, of these birds are males : they make a very loud and startling noise when they ta^ke to the wing, which can be heard a long way off. Their flesh is not equal to either Black Duck or Teal. I have proved them to have an extraordinary sense of smell. These birds are fairly plentiful at times, and in 1889 they visited the Heed-beds in great numbers, and in October nested amongst the high clover in my paddocks. The nests were rudely formed on the ground and the eggs varied from four to seven in a nest.” Mr. J. W. Mellor has written me : “ Commonly known as the ‘ Shoveller,’ also as the ‘ Blue Wing.’ They are not plentiful, but at times are seen in fair numbers in the swampy localities. I have taken them at the Heed-beds, South Australia, and also seen them on Lakes Alexandrina and Albert. They have a very fast flight, and one generally knows when ‘ Shovellers ’ VOL. IV. 121 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. enter the pool at night, when waiting for a shot at ducks, by the straight swoop and arrow-like rapidity with which they settle on the surface of the water. They choose a secluded spot for their nest among the thick grass and bushes adjacent to the swamps. Their food is obtained chiefly about the water and consists of seeds and aquatic growth found in these localities, the water being sifted through their shovel-like bills, and anything desirable retained and eaten. They are often sent into the Adelaide market for eating purposes.” Mr. Tom Carter’s notes are: “ The Shoveller is a rare species. The only specimen noted by me in the Mid-west I shot sixty miles inland from Point Cloates, Oct. 30, 1900. One was shot the same year on the Minilya River. I was told of one being shot at Lake Muir.” Berney {Eynu, Vol. VI., p. 157, 1907) records : “ Very seldom seen in the Richmond district (S. Queensland) ; there were a few about in January 1900, and I saw a single bird in January 1902.” Hall, writing about the birds of the Murray River district {EmUy Vol. IX., p. 77, 1909) writes: “ This is the most local of the Ducks, and may be found when nearly all the other species have gone north or have distributed themselves. Their young are later abroad. To a limited extent only they nest in this district. When feeding one may distinctly hear them sieving in the mud. As with every other animal, they place their confidence in man until once shot at with a heavy gun. It is then difiicult to approach near to a flock. It is a very quick flier. A flock will be asleep, and, if alarmed, the whole body will be 20 feet high in the air in the next instant. One ‘ Bluewing ’ will make as much noise as a whole flock of any other Duck. There is a hum in the wing as it rises. The males have a form of play by rising 15 to 20 feet directly above where they were swimming and very quickly. They immediately fall back to their swimming position.” Stone, on the Birds of Lake Boga, Victoria {Emu, Vol. XII., p. 121, 1912) says : “ Very common. I think these Ducks are the most suspicious of the presence of possible danger. Maximum, twelve eggs.” North recorded a specimen of the New Zealand Shoveler as having been procured in Australia, but as I consider the New Zealand bird only subspecificaUy distinct, I conclude that North’s specimen was simply an aberration of the Australian form and do not include the New Zealand bird in the Australian List. Of the birds figured and described, the male was collected at Narandra, New South Wales, in May, 1892, and the female at Lake Alexandra, South Australia, on the 26th February, 1912, by Capt. S. A. White. 122 Genus— M ALACORHYNCHUS. Malacobhynchus Swainson, Journ. Roy. Inst. Great Brit., Vol. II., pt. iv., p. 18, 1831 . . T3rpe M. mtmhranacms. Also spelt — Malacorynchus Swainson, Classif. Birds, Vol. II., p. 366, 1837. Malacorhynchos Bonaparte, Ann. Sci. Nat. Paris, Ser. IV., Vol. I., p. 151, 1854. Small Anatine birds with very long spatulate bills, with lateral leathery appendages. The bill is very long, much longer than the head, and more than one- third the length of the wing, rather shallow at the base, not expanding much anteriorly but developing laterally long wing-lil^e leathery appendages ; its depth is little more than one- quarter of its length and is equal to its breadth. Long finely-toothed combs are strongly developed along the inner edges of the upper mandible right up to the nail, which is well defined as a small overhanging triangular tip. The combs are externally observable, save where obscured by the lateral wings. The nostrils are small ovals placed high up near the base and approximate very closely ; the culmen ridge is scarcely marked except between nostrils, anteriorly merging into lateral edges ; the lateral edges are straight, and do not show a bag as in the previous genus. The under mandible is very narrow : the rami are well marked enclosing an unfeathered tract, and extending almost the whole length of the mandible, only a very small nail, agreeing with that of the upper, occurring. On each side of the rami a soft leathery expansion can be observed, and strong combs similar to those of the upper mandible are present. The wings are long, the first primary being longest. The tad is short, less than one- third the length of the wing. The metatarsus i^ little more than half the length of the culmen, and is exceeded slightly by the middle toe. The toes are fully webbed, the hind-toe narrowly lobed. 123 Order ANSEEIFOBMES No. 268. Family ANATIDJE, MALACORHYNCHUS MEMBRANACEUS. PINK-EARED DUCK. (Plate 214.)* Anas membeanacea Latham, Index Omith. SuppL, p. Ixix., 1801 ; New South Wales. New Holland D(uck) Latham, Gen. Synops. Birds, SuppL, Vol. II., p. 359, 1801. Anas membranacea Latham, Index Omith. SuppL, p. Ixix., 1801 ; Vieillot, Nouv. Diet. d’Hist. Nat., Vol. V., p. 108, 1816 ; Dumont, Diet. Sci. Nat. (Levrault), Vol. VI., p. 388, 1817 ; Vieillot, Tabl. Ency. Meth. Omith., Vol. I., p. 358, 1820. Anas fasciata Shaw, Nat. Miscellany, Vol. XVII., pi. 697, 1805 ; New South Wales ; Lesson, Traite d’Orn., p. 632, 1831. Membranaceous Duck, Latham, Gen. Hist. Birds, Vol. X., p. 331, 1824. Ehynchaspis membranacea Stephen’s in Shaw’s Gen. ZooL, Vol. XII., pt. n., p. 124, 1824. Malacorhynchus membranaceus Swainson, Journ. Roy. Soc. Great Brit., Vol. II., pt. rv., p. 18, 1831 ; Gray, List Grenera Birds, p. 74, 1840 ; id., ib., 2nd ed., p. 94, 1841 ; id., List Birds Brit. Mus,, pt. m., p. 139, 1844 ; id.. Genera Birds, Vol. III., p. 618, 1845 ; Hartlaub, Syst. Verz. Ges. Mus., p. 120, 1844 ; Gould, Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 13, 1845 ; Leichhardt, Journ. Overl. Exped. Austr., pp. 282, 319, 333, 341, 1847 ; Stokes Discov. in Austr., Vol. I., App., p. 483, 1846 ; Reichenbach, Synops. Av. Natat., pi. 88, figs. 924-925, 1845 ; pi. 86, figs. 2332-3, 1850 ; Gray, Genera Birds, App., p. 28, 1849 ; Sturt, Narr. Exped. Centr. Austr., Vol. II., App., p. 56, 1849 ; Reichenbach, Nat. Syst. Vogel., p. ix., 1852 ; Lichtenstein, Nomencl. Av. Mus. ZooL BeroL, p. 102, 1854 ; Bonaparte, Comptes Rendus Sci. (Paris), Vol. XLIII., p. 650, 1856 ; Ziichold, Journ. fiir Orn., 1858, p. 41 ; Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 372, 1865 ; Ramsay, Ibis 1866, p. 335 ; MuUer, Proc. ZooL Soc. (Lond.) 1869, p. 280 ; Gray, Handl. Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. in., p. 85, 1871 ; Sundevall, Meth. Nat. Av. Disp. Tent., p. 148, 1872 ; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. I., pp. 195, 216, 219, 1877 ; Castelnau and Ramsay, ib., p. 386, 1877 ; Ramsay, ib., Vol. II., p. 200, 1877 ; Higgles, Birds Austr., Vol. II., pi. 113, 1877 ; Selater, Proc. ZooL Soc. (Lond.) 1880, p. 524 ; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. VII., p. 58, 1882 ; Baird, Brewer and Ridgway, Water Birds, Vol. I., p. 525, 1884 ; Legge, Papers and Proc. Roy. Soc. Tasm. 1886, p. 244, 1887 ; North, Austr. Mus. Cat., no. 12, p, 344, 1890 ; Heine and Reichenow, Nomencl. Mus. Hein., p. 347, 1890 ; Salvador!, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVII., p. 319, 1895; North, Trans. Roy. Soc. South Austr., Vol. XXII., p. 191, 1898; Hall, Key * The Plate is lettered Malacorhynchm assimilis. 124 % MALACORHYNCHUS ASSIMILIS. (WESTERN PINK- EARED DUCK/. . ..„ ‘V .1 •4 ' 'V.^S*?* ''M "•ej.'.ts i *'=■ * 'i • ■ « •■ iV Bk .? • '■ ,/-■ -C/*^ t rw," L«' fi,i ■ '■ .'» C'.' , .-r? fi :/.'■■ r; .'.i^-'i' ;, ' ■ ■ ■- ; •-• .- . . : ■„:; - . i»kj • y~ ■ ■ .i ’W, • ' ,' :•* -■; -.- ' >'■ . '.s’- • '•''' •/' ‘ ■'•■J .> -Efc, .,- . f, ' •• , ^ ) ■ •* ■ ■*'■■.;(. ■•■^ ^- ^^-;;¥?'.' V Si • • - sV'Vt.; i«*'t " vTsy^'^-iik-Lf? -'T • ) '• .w :■ -t:,. ■ h' ; ‘ r /- /-■.■; ■'•/ . - S.- : t - l“ ■v... v,.,,. . BraSwr, . , ,:.J< .VJs^v-*' .i ■- , r:.^ :.s-.,.vyv . ‘'■iv\. I -T- < ' •■ ^ .'. »‘ 5 j * ^ [.TfcJ U ' ^ ' ; . r» * '^ ■ r * ■ '■'“ ■ .' ' i - •'■>’■ ■■-■'kiJrh . ■ . •■,■>. . 7" '-■ ‘'ft'-^.' .r.,- - -r ,\i V . ■■ . .. . " .. ^V'. -V ■£:;V‘V-,-' '.«*;■ ^.1 iVs' W: J ' 'M ». • V' •■ ■<■. ■''• V ' ' ’ r ;y^;^;,.::^ ; V.' v'- ■■ ^ 'f*' ,'^’'* . ' •T > '■ -Sf • j - V , • 4v" ' ' ' . . '•'*■• ., " • ■ ■ •:•- -o: r, ... ss4t,w% v;r-f ‘ V V ;/ ^:.;'“^v, *.y -. ^'’ •' ^ .iVu.n ■• ■» X' '■' .'^.C,.' S-.'v'V, ** 11:1 S-5? 1 j»' Lei:. Hi r 'J.>L'. I* jj'-'l!.' 1 PINK-EAKED DUCK. Birds Austr., p. 108, 1899; Campbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 1046, 1901 ; Lyons, Emu, Vol. I., p. 136, 1902 ; Carter, ih., Vol. III., p. 212, 1904 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 108, 1906 ; Bemey, Emu, Vol. VI., p. 157, 1907 ; Batey, ih., Vol. VII., p. 14, 1907 ; Austin, ib., p. 79, 1907 ; Ingram, Ibis 1907, p. 395 ; Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 36, 1908 ; Hall, Emu, Vol. IX., p. 79, 1909 ; Sassi, Journ. fiir Orn., 1909, p. 383 ; Littler, Handb. Birds Tasm., p. 225, 1910 ; Stone, Emu, Vol. XII., p. 121, 1912 ; Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 239, 1912 ; id., List Birds Austr., p. 92, 1913 ; North, Austr. Mus. Spec. Cat., no. 1, Vol. IV., p. 84, 1913 ; Macgilhvray, Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 147, 1914. Malacorhyndius fasciatus Wagler, Isis 1832, p. 1235. Malacorynchus memhranaceus Swainson, Classif, Birds, Vol. II., p. 366, 1837. Malacorhyndius memhrinacea Eyton, Monogr. Anat., p. 136, 1838. Malacorhynchus iodotis Lesson, Echo du Monde Savant, 11th year, no. 6, col. 128, July 21, 1844 (see reprint, p. 151), New South Wales ; id., Descr. Mamm. Ois., p. 246, 1847. Anas iodotis Schlegel, Mus. Pays-Bas, Vol. VI., Anseres, p. 36, 1866. Anas malacorhyncha (nec Gmehn) id., ih. Malacorhynchus malacorhynchus (nec Gmelin) Hartert, Katal. Vogels Mus. Senckenb., p. 232, 1891. Malacorhynchus memhranaceus assimilis Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 86, 1912 ; Eitzroy River, N.W.A. Malacorhynchus memhranaceus memhranaceus Mathews, ih. Distribution. Austraha ; Tasmania. Adult male. Crown of head and fore-head hoary grey ; a patch of dark brown in front of the eye and which encircles the latter extending also along the sides of the crown on to the nape and hind-neck ; a pink spot on each side of the head behind the eye ; throat, lores, a narrow eyebrow, and a narrow ring roimd the eye white ; sides of face, sides of neck, and entire imder-surface including the under wing- coverts white barred with brown, more broadly on the breast and sides of the body and more narrowly on the abdomen and sides of the face ; axillaries and under tail-coverts pure white ; upper back, scapulars and wings earth-brown barred with buff on the mantle and minutely vermiculated with buff on the scapulars and upper wing-coverts ; bastard-wing dark brown edged with white ; primary-coverts and quills dark brown ; inner primary- and secondary-qhills tipped with white ; sides of the rump white barred with brown ; rump and upper tail-coverts dark brown, the latter broadly tipped with white ; tail-feathers brown fringed with white at the tips. Bill and feet slaty-blue ; eyes brown. Total length 420 mm. ; cuhnen 62, wing 181, tail 63, tarsus 35. Adult female. Distinguished from the adult male only by its smaller size. Culmen 57 mm., wing 177, tail 61, tarsus 31. Nest. A deserted nest of a Heron (or a nest made as a platform), with down built up to form an egg cavity sometimes four inches high, which, being elastic, covers over the eggs more or less when the bird leaves the nest. Eggs. Clutch, six to eight ; kite shaped ; ground-colour creamy-white, surface dull ; axis 45-46 mm. ; diameter 32. Breeding-season, August to December. 125 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. This is another bird described by Latham in 1801, but it appears to have attracted notice earlier than that, as a reference to the “ Whistling Duck ” was made when Latham described the Semipalmated Goose in 1798 as noted under that species. The name “ Whistling Duck ” has since been generally applied to Tree Ducks, so that it is necessary to bear this in mind when reading ancient records. Sturt makes the note : “ It is very common on most of the Australian creeks and streams, and is called the ‘Whistling Duck,’ which gave the clue to Latham’s expression. Very little is known of its habits, as might be expected on account of its frequency everywhere. Field Naturalists please note. I write this as it will be observed as little is known of the life-history of Common species of Ducks as of rare species. Captain S. A. White has written me : “ This pretty little duck is never seen in any numbers near the coast, but in the interior they congregate during good seasons and lay in numbers and bring up their young. . . . The ‘ pink-eared Duck ’ was very scarce on the lakes during our visit, due no doubt to their having followed the heavy rains into the interior to nest some months previous to our visit.” Mr. Tom Carter’s only note reads : “Not uncommon in the Mid- west : mostly seen on shallow clay pans.” Hall remarks {Emu, Vol. IX., p. 79, 1909) : “ This bird feeds in the same manner as the Shoveler. It shovels about in the mud, head down and tail up, as it floats. The preference is for brackish lagoons.” The most interesting note I have seen is that by Berney {Emu, Vol. VI., p. 157, 1907) : “ The quaint little Pink-ear is one of the more uncommon Ducks with us, not too often seen, and then as a rule in small numbers ; its irregular visits are confined to the wet season. While at a waterhole on one occasion a mob of five-and-twenty of these bhds (the most I think I ever saw together) in company with a dozen Teal, swept over my head and dropped on to the water 30 yards further down. They appeared little disturbed by my presence, so I determined, as I could touch bottom with my feet, to cultivate a closer acquaintance. With only my nostrils and the top of my head above water I approached them steadily. Allowing me to get right amongst them, they evinced considerable interest in my proceedings, with but little or no fear ; they chased one another about, they courted or preened their feathers, within a few feet of my head, now and again one standing up to flap its wings in my face. All the time the mob kept up a subdued running conversation in their soft musical notes. At times I could almost have caught some of 126 PINK-EAEED DUCK. the birds by their feet and drawn them under, blackfellow fashion — I could certainly have done it had I had a covering of bushes or rushes for my head. This refers to the Pink-ears ; the Teal of the party more discreetly watched the development of proceedings from the outside of the mob. They are very confiding little Duck, and easily shot, but are not much sought after by shooters, as they are so small, only going from half to three-quarters of a pound, and are reckoned dry and poor eating. Mr. A. S. Le Souef, who examined the stomach of (a female) specimen, reported that it contained vegetable matter and fresh- water shells.” The bird figured and described was collected on the Eitzroy Diver, North-west Australia, on the 10th of January, 1896. 127 Genus— S TIGTONETTA. Stictonetta Reichenbach, Nat. Syst. Vogel, p. ix., • • • • • • . . . . . . . . Type S. ncevosa. Medium-sized Anatine birds characterised by the “freckled” coloration. The bm is long, longer than the head, rather high at base, suddenly descending and anteriorly rather concave where there is also a slight lateral expansion ; nail very small, well defined with rather triangular tip : the lateral edges are straight and though internally there are well developed and separated lamellae, these are not externally visible. The under mandible is narrow throughout its length, no corresponding expansion to that of the upper mandible taking place ; the interramal space is narrow and unfeathered and the nail is long. The neck is rather long. The wings are comparatively short with the first primary longest. The tail is short, composed of square broad feathers almost obscured by the upper tail-coverts. The tail is little longer than the bill and not much more than a quarter of the wing length. The legs are long and very stout, while the toes are about equal in length and also stout: they are fuUy webbed, and the hind toe is narrowly lobed and comparatively long. Salvador! {Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVII., p. 324, 1895) has commented : “ Systematic position very uncertain,” and gives details somewhat as above. 128 Order AN8ERIF0RME8 Family ANATIDM, No. 269. ' STICTONETTA N^VOSA. FEECKLED DUCK. (Plate 215.)* Anas N.EVOSA Gould, Proc. Zool. Soc, (Lond.), 1840, p. 177, 1841 ; West Australia. Anas ncBvosa Gould, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.), 1840, p. 177 ; id., Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 10, 1841; Sclater, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1864, p. 192; Schlegel, Mus. Pays- Bas, Vol. VI., Anseres, p. 63, 1866; Muller, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1869, p. 280; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. I., pp. 195, 216, 219, 1877 ; Morton, Papers and Proc. Roy. Soc. Tasm. 1884, p. Ixix., 1885. Tadorna ncevosa Gray, List Birds Brit. Mus., pt. m., p. 132, 1844 ; id., Genera Birds, Vol. III., p. 613, 1845; Reichenbach, Synops. Av. Natat., pi. 93, fig. 431, 1845; Gray, Handl. Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. iii., p. 80, 1871. Stictonetta ncevosa Reichenbach, Nat. Syst. Vogel., p. ix., 1852 ; Bonaparte, Comptes Rendus Sci. (Paris), Vol. XLIII., p. 649, 1856 ; Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 367, 1865 ; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. II., p. 200, 1878; id., ib., Vol. III., p. 154, 1878 ; Legge, Papers and Proc. Roy. Soc. Tasmania, 1886, p. 244, 1887 ; Ramsay, Tab. List Austr. Birds, p. 22, 1888 ; North, Austr. Mus. Cat., no. 12, p. 340, 1890 ; Hartert, Ratal. Vogels Mus. Senckenb., p. 228, 1891 ; Harting, Ibis 1894, p. 297 ; Salvador!, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVII., p. 324, 1895; Hall, Key Birds Austr., p. 108, 1899 ; Campbell, Ibis 1899, p. 362, fig. ; id.. Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 1049, 1901 ; Carter, Emu, Vol. III., p. 212, 1904 ; Legge, ih., Vol. IV., p. 108, 1905 ; Hartert, Nov. Zool., Vol. XII., p. 206, 1905 ; M‘Clymont, Emu, Vol. V., p. 162, 1906 ; HaU, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 108, 1906 ; Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 36, 1908 ; Hall, Emu, Vol. IX., p. 79, 1909 ; id., ib., p. 133, 1910 ; Littler, Handb. Birds Tasm., p. 225, 1910 ; Ogilvie-Grant, Ibis 1910, p. 173 ; Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 239, 1912 ; Stone, Emu, Vol. XII., p. 121, 1912; Orton and Sandland, ib., XIII., p. 76, 1913 ; \^North, Austr. Mus. Spec. Cat., no. 1, Vol. IV., p. 88, 1913 ; Mathews, List Birds Austr., p. 93, 1913. Stictonetta ncevosa lesueuri Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 87, 1912 ; New South Wales. Stictonetta ncevosa ncevosa Mathews, ib. Distribution. Austraha ; Tasmania. Adult male. Entire upper-surface, throat and fore-neck dark brown inclining to black on the head, barred and vermiculated with white or huffy -white, becoming much paler on the abdomen and under tail-coverts; axiUaries and under wing-coverts white ; quills dark brown, paler on the inner webs. Bill greenish-grey, darker at * The Plate is lettered Stictonetta hranda. VOL. IV. 129 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. the tip ; iris light brown ; feet bluish-green. Total length 515 mm. ; culmen 55, wing 230, tail 68, tarsus 43. In full breeding plumage this bird has the feathers of the back of the head elongated and the base of the bill gets red at this season. Adult female. Similar to the adult male but smaller and not so dark on the head and fore-neck. Total length 510 mm. ; culmen 49, tail 64. Nest. “ Similarly situated to those of most Ducks, in herbage upon the ground ” (Campbell). Eggs. “ Clutch, ten to twelve probably ; long elhpse in form ; texture of shell comparatively fine ; surface glossy or greasy to the touch ; colour light greenish-white. Most resemble those of the Black Duck. Dimensions in inches : 2.26-2.5 X 1.65-1.7 ” (CampbeU). Breeding-season. Not recorded. First described by Gould in 1840, still very little is known regarding the life- history or structure of this bird. Captain S. A. White has written me : “ T have only seen this fiine duck down South during droughts in the interior. They are very fast fliers, and when duck-shooting by moonlight I have known these birds to strike the water with such force that they have been momentarily stunned. I have never known them to breed. Saw a few on a lagoon on Eyre’s Peninsula in 1909.” Mr. J. W. Mellor confirms the preceding in his note : “ Called the ‘ speckled ’ duck, also ‘ freckled ’ duck. These birds are found in South Australia, but are not constant with us in the southern coastal districts, but visit us at times in the winter months. I have seen them at the Reed-beds, near Adelaide, also on the lower reaches of the River Murray ; it is a somewhat shy bird, and not easily stalked. On the expedition to Eire’s Peninsula in 1909 I saw some of these ducks at Warenda, right in the scrub country, where they were about a small waterhole in an almost dry creek. A specimen was obtained, which is in my collection. The sexes are alike in coloration. A peculiarity about these ducks is the very narrow bill in comparison to that of the other members of the duck family, but this is compensated for by the extra depth especially at the base and nostrils. Occasionally these ducks are sent into the Adelaide market for food.” Mr. Tom Carter states : “ This is a rare species and has only once come under my notice, viz. July 23, 1900, when I shot three from a small flock at a pool inland from Point Cloates.” Hall [Emu, Vol. IX., p. 79, 1909) notes : “ Here we have a Duck quiet, lame and sleepy. Shooters say it has no sense of smeU. Its voice is likened to the grunt of a Berkshire pig.” The bird figured and described was collected in New South Wales. 130 Genus — Y R 0 C A . Nyroca Fleming, Philos. ZooL, Vol. II., p. 260, 1822 . . Type N. nyroca. Aythya Boie, Isis 1822, p. 564 . . . . . . . . Type N. nyroca. Also spelt — Aithyia Gloger, in Froriep’s Notizen, Vol. XVT., p. 279, 1827. Aethyia, id., ih. Aifhya Kaup, Skizz Entwick Gesch. Nat. Syst., p. 99, 1829. Athya Brandt, in Lehmann Reise nach Buchara, p. 329, 1852. Aythyia Bonaparte, Comptes Rendus Sci. (Paris), Vol. XLIII., p. 651, 1856. Aythia Salvador!, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVII., p. 334, 1895. Ilyonetta Heine, Nomencl. Mus. Hein. Orn., p. 347, 1890 . . Type N. nyroca. Anatine birds with comparatively short bills, long wings, short tail, short legs, long toes, the hind toe widely lobed. The hill is comparatively short, though longer than the head, compara- tively broad and deep. The culmen ridge is ill-defined, the nail being somewhat obsolete and a little overhanging. The depth at the base is rather more than half its length and is equal to its breadth. A coarse comb can be observed on the internal edges of the upper mandible with a corresponding coarse serration present on the edges of the under mandible. The rami enclose a triangular unfeathered tract, the nail being not well marked off. The neck is short. The wings are long, the first primary longest and narrow, showing flight capabihty. The tail is short and square, about one-fourth the length of the wing, the feathers pointed to some extent. The legs are short and stout, the metatarsus showing the usual solitary row of scutes on the anterior portion ; in length it is just exceeded by the chord of the culmen. The toes are long, the middle toe equalling the tail in length and much exceeding the metatarsus ; the hind toe is long with a prominent broad lobe. This is the sole Australian representative of the large section of Ducks, known as Diving Ducks from their manner of feeding. It so closely resembles the northern species that I at one time only gave it subspecific rank ; its northern origin is therefore obvious, as a close ally occurs in the East Indies. Yet in New Zealand a “ Diving Duck ” lives which is in no way related to the Australian species, but is referred to a different genus, and that genus is unrepresented otherwise in the Southern Hemisphere. This constitutes another of the Austral-Neozelanic anomalies in this Order. 131 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. In my Hand-List of the Birds of Australasia, following Sharpe’s Hand- List, 1 made use of Aythya Boie, 1822. This was given priority over Nyroca Fleming, 1822, though both were published in the same year. I concluded Nyroca Fleming must be resumed {Nov. Zool., Vol. XVII., p. 499, 1910), as Boie’s name was shown to be preoccupied (Stone, Auh 1907, p. 190). As regards priority Boie’s name has undoubted claim, though Hartert {Hand-List of British Birds, by Hartert, Jourdain, Ticehurst and Witherby, 1910, p. 145, footnote) has argued otherwise. Given two dates, one certain and the other uncertain, the certain date must always he accepted in preference to the later uncertain one. Any other argument is invalid. ■J.', 132 A. 1 . I NVRO CA AU S TRALI S . f A us THALIA IV WHirU -HYSI) Tc/CK). Order ANSERIF0RME8 No. 270. Family AN AT I DM. NYEOCA AUSTRALIS. WHITE-EYED DUCK. (Plate 216.) Nyroca australis Eyton, Monogr. Anatidse, p. 160, 1838 ; New South Wales. Nyroca australis Eyton, Monogr. Anatidee, p. 160, 1838 ; Gray, List Birds Brit. Mus., pt. III., p. 144, 1844 ; id., Genera Birds, Vol. III., p. 621, 1845 ; Gould, Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 16, 1847 ; Reichenbach, Synops. Av. Natat., pi. 79, figs. 2326-7, 1850 ; Lichtenstein, Nomencl. Av. Mus. Zool. Berol., p. 102, 1854 ; Bonaparte, Comptes Rendus Sci. (Paris), Vol. XLIII., p. 651, 1856 ; Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 377, 1865 ; Ramsay, Ibis 1867, p. 414 ; Muller, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Bond.) 1869, p. 280 ; Hutton, Trans. New Zeal. Inst. 1869, Vol. II., p. 78, 1870 ; Buller, Ibis 1870, p. 459 ; Hutton, ib., p. 395 ; id., Cat. Birds New Zeal., p. 38, 1871; Finsch, Journ. fiir Orn. 1872, p. 188; id., ib., 1874, p. 202; Buller, Hist. Birds New Zeal., p. 257, 1873; Sharpe, Voy. “Erebus” and “Terror” Birds, p. 31, 1875 ; Biggies, Birds Austr., Vol. II., pi. 116, 1877 ; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. I., pp. 195, 216, 219, 1877 ; id., ib., Vol. II., p. 200, 1878 ; id., ib., Vol. III., p. 154, 1878 ; id., Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1877, p. 347 ; Castelnau and Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. I., p. 386, 1877 ; Buller, Manual Birds New Zeal., p. 72, 1882 ; id.. Hist. Birds New Zeal., 2nd ed., Vol. II., p. 275, 1888 ; Ramsay, Tab. List. Austr. Birds, p. 22, 1888 ; North, Austr. Mus. Cat., no. 12, p. 345, 1889; Buller, Trans. New Zeal. Inst. 1892, Vol. XXV., p. 63, 1893; Salvador!, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVII., p. 350, 1895 ; North, Trans. Roy. Soc. South Austr., Vol. XXII., p. 191, 1898 ; Hall, Eey Birds Austr., p. 108, 1899 ; Canapbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 1050, 1901 ; Carter, Emu, Vol. III., p. 212, 1904; Hill, ib., p. 229, 1904; Milligan, ib., Vol. IV., p. 11, 1904; Legge, ib., p. 108, 1905 ; Hartert, Nov. Zool., Vol. XII., p. 206, 1905 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 108, 1906 ; Berney, Emu, Vol. VI., p. 157, 1907 ; Batey, ib., Vol. VII., p. 14, 1907 ; Austin, ib., p. 79, 1907 ; Broadbent, ib., Vol. X., p. 245, 1910 ; Littler, Handb. Birds Tasm., p. 226, 1910 ; Stone, Emu, Vol. XII., p. 121, 1912 ; White, ib., p. 183, 1913 ; Mathews and Iredale, Ibis 1913, p. 409 ; North, Austr. Mus. Spec. Cat., no. 1., Vol. IV., p. 90, 1913 ; Mathews, List Birds Austr., p. 93, 1913 ; White, Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 23, 1913 ; Orton and Sandland, Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 76, 1913 ; White, ib., p. 124, 1914 ; Macgillivray, ib., p. 147, 1914 ; Barnard, ib., p. 209, 1914 ; id., ib., Vol. XIV., p. 41, 1914. 133 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. Fuligula australis Schlegel, Mus. Pays-Bas, VoL VI., Anseres, p. 30, 1866 ; Sclater, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1880, p. 526 ; Legge, Papers and Proc. Roy. Soc. Tasm. 1886, p. 245, 1887 ; Hartert, Katal. Vogels Mus. Senckenb., p. 233, 1891. AytJiya australis Gray, Handl. Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. m., p. 87, 1871 ; BuUer, Suppl. Birds New Zeal., Vol. II., p. 16, 1906 ; Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 36, 1908 ; Hall, Emu, Vol. IX., p. 78, 1909 ; Howe, ih., p. 229, 1910 ; Mathews, ib., Vol. X., p. 107, 1910. Anas australis Giebel, Thes. Ornith., Vol. I., p. 345, 1892. Ilyonetta australis Heine and Reichenow, Nomencl. Mus. Hein. Om., p. 347, 1890. Fuligula haeri (not Radde) Rothschild and Hartert, Nov. Zool., Vol. I., p. 684, 1894 (Waigou). Aethyia australis Ingram, Ibis 1907, p. 395. Nyroca nyroca australis Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 239, 1912. Nyroca nyroca dampieri Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 87, 1912 ; Fitzroy River, North-west Australia. Distribution. Australia; Tasmania (extra-Kmital). Adult male. Entire upper-surface including the head, neck, throat, chest, and sides of body chestnut-brown, somewhat darker on the hind-neck; lower abdomen similar but not so bright ; a pale crescent-shaped spot below the eye ; middle of abdomen whitish ; axillaries and under wing-coverts white, marginal under wing- coverts greyish-brown, outer edge of wing white ; outer primaries bronzy-brown, paler and becoming white at the base ; secondaries white with greenish-brown tips and white edges which form a double wing-bar ; the innermost secondaries and under tail-coverts white. Bill : upper mandible black with a broad blue-grey band at the tip, lower mandible brown ; iris white ; feet and tarsus grey, all the joints being blackish-brown. Total length 524 mm. ; culmen 46, wing 223, tail 60, tarsus 40. Adult female. Similar to the adult male but the chestnut less pronounced. Total length 500 mm. ; culmen 44, vdng 214, tail 58, tarsus 37. Nest. “ Sometimes a hole or hollow spout of a tree, at other times situated upon the ground in herbage ; if the latter, the nesting-place is lined with grass mixed with down and feathers. Nest-down brownish-grey or greyish-brown, each particle being lighter coloured on the tips and whitish in the centre ” (Campbell). Eggs. “ Clutch, eleven to thirteen ; elliptical in shape ; texture of shell comparatively fine ; surface glossy and greasy ; colour, light creamy-white. Dimensions in inches : 2.26-2.27 X 1.64-1.67 ” (Campbell). Breeding-season. Not recorded. There is little to record of the life-history of this fiine Duck which was first described by Eyton in 1838. Mr. Tom Carter’s note reads : “ This was one of the commonest species occurring in the Mid-west.” Mr. Sandland writes : “ Often seen on the tanks at any period of the year at Balah, South Australia.” Captain S. A. White observes : “ These birds are found in great numbers on our lakes ; they are expert divers and seem to collect much food from the 134 WHITE-EYED DUCK. bottom of the lakes. I have known them often to prefer to escape by diving than to take to wing. Their food consists chiefly of small fresh-water shell- fish ; ninety per cent, of these birds are infested with tapeworms, their intestines containing yards upon yards of these worms.” Mr. J. W. Mellor notes : “ Known as the ‘ Hardhead,’ also ‘ Widgeon ’ by the colonists, and ‘ Punkery ’ by the blacks, they are fairly common in South Australia. I have seen them on Lakes Alexandrina and Albert, at the Reed-beds and various other places. They sometimes collect in flocks of some scores in number and may be seen on the swamps diving and dredging with their bills in the soft mud and aquatic plants, securing their food. They do not seem to nest in these southern districts but depart in the spring, presum- ably for the more isolated spots, where they can breed unmolested.” Later he added : “ They breed in the district, as a resident of Lake Albert last season secured a splendid clutch for the Adelaide Museum, containing no fewer than sixteen eggs — a truly large clutch for such a small bird ; the eggs resemble the usual duck eggs in colour and shape, but are smaller than the Black Duck and larger than the Teal.” Berney {Emu, Vol. VI., p. 157, 1907) regarding Queensland recorded : “ A far from common and a shy Duck in these parts, showing up with the summer rains and leaving again as soon as they cease and the outside waters dry up. The stomach (of a male shot January, 1905) was examined by Mr. A. S. Le Souef, who reported that it contained ‘ roughly, fifty per cent, gravel, many broken small sheU-fish, grass or plant-fibres, no trace of bones or insects.’ ” Hall {Emu, Vol. IX., p. 78, 1909) has written : “ This is one of the two species known as Widgeon or Hardhead. It fishes in conjunction with the Coots {Fulica australis). A flock of say 100 will find a large flock of Coots and watch them disturbing the shrimps in order to secure a share. The Coot collects its food below the surface, while the Hardhead catches the shrimp as it jumps in the air. The Hardhead catches two to the Coots’ ^one. This is a Diving Duck and probably the only one that resorts to this method. The Coots appear to do all the work. Mussels form another food, which is found in the clayey banks of the river, into which the Ducks plunge their beaks below the water surface. They prefer timbered lakes. A loud squawk is their signal to rise quickly.” The bird figured and described is a male collected in Victoria in December, 1862. 135 Gentjs— E RISMATURA. Ekismatuea Bonaparte, Giorn. Arcad. (Roma), Vol. LIL, p. 208, 1832 Type 0. ja7naicensis. Also spelt — Erimistura Degland & Gerbe, Om. Eur., Vol. II., p. 565, 1867. Oxyura Bonaparte, Annals Lyc. Nat. Hist. New York, Vol. II., p. 390, 1828 .. .. .. Type 0. ja 7 naicensis. Not Oxyurus Swainson, 1824, Gy7nnuTa Nuttall, Manual Ornith., Vol. II., p. 426, 1834 , . . . . . . . . . . . T3rpe 0. ja7naicensis. Plectrum Gistel, Naturg. des Thier. Schul. 1848, p. x. Tjrpe 0. ja 7 naicensis. Anatine birds with short bill, short neck, short wings, long tail of narrow stiff feathers and short stout legs. The bill is short, about as long as the head, comparatively deep and somewhat depressed towards tip ; on the internal edges of the upper mandible coarse lameUse occur. The culmen ridge is ill-defined ; nostrils are small ovals situated half way towards the tip ; the nail is well defined though small and the tip curves rather inwardly. The under mandible is rather narrow, the interramal tract being unfeathered and the anterior portion is not separated, though long. The wing is short, the feathers very narrow ; the first three primaries are almost subequal, the first slightly longest. The tail is composed of sixteen stiff pointed feathers, the upper tad- coverts being short and insignificant. It is less than half the length of the wing, but half as long again as the culmen or metatarsus. The legs are very short and stout, entirely covered with reticulate scales ; the metatarsus is about equal to the culmen and about one-fourth the length of the wing. The toes are very long and fully webbed, the outer toe being longest ; the middle toe is as long as the tail, while the hind toe is small, with a small lobe. In the Nov. Zool, Vol. XVIII., p. 9, 1911, I preferred Oxyura to Eris7natura, as the former had been rejected owing to the prior Oxyurus ; according to the International Code both these names should be preserved. 136 ERISMATURA. The Code of the American Ornithologists’ Union admitted one of these only, and upon my protest it was pointed out that no Rule was transgressed, only a Recommendation. The rejection of this recommendation would seem imminent, as it is not being adhered to by the great majority of working scientists. I am here using Erismatura in accordance with the usage of the American Ornithologists’ Union. In the same place, I noted that Cerconectes has apparent priority over Eris7natura, and this I think is true, but I now consider the type species of Cerconectes generically distinct from that of Eris^natura. VOL. IV. 137 Order ANSERIFORMES No. 271. Family ANATIDuE. ERISMATURA AUSTRALIS. BLUE-BILLED DUCK. (Plate 217.)* OxYTJRA AUSTRALIS Gould, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1836, p. 85 ; Swan River, West Australia. Oxyura australis Gould, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1836, p. 85 ; id., Synops. Birds Austr., pt. n., pi. 36, 1837 ; Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 239, 1912 ; id.. List Birds Austr., p. 94, 1913. Erismatura australis Eyton, Monogr. Anat., p. 172, 1838 ; Gray, List Birds Brit. Mus., pt. m., p. 146, 1844 ; id.. Genera Birds, Vol. III., p. 627, 1844 ; Gould, Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 17, 1844 ; Reichenbach, Synops. Av. Natat., pi. 78, figs. 902-3, 1845 ; Bonaparte, Comptes Rendus Sci. (Paris), Vol. XLIII., p. 652, 1856 ; Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 379, 1865 ; Gray, Handl. Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. III., p. 90, 1871 ; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. I., pp. 196, 220, 1877 ; id., ib., Vol. II., p. 200, 1878 ; Sclater, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1880, p. 530 ; Ramsay, Tab. List Austr. Birds, p. 22, 1888 ; North, Austr. Mus. Cat., no. 12, p. 346, 1890 ; Heine and Reichenow, Nomencl. Mus. Hein. Orn., p. 349, 1890 ; Bennett, Ibis 1891, pp. 143-5 ; North, Rec. Austr. Mus., Vol. II., p. 37, 1892 ; Salvador!, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVII., p. 451, 1895 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., p. 108, 1899 ; Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 36, 1908 ; Littler, Handb. Birds Tasm., p. 227, 1910 ; Stone, Emu, Vol. XII., p. 121, 1912 ; Orton and Sandland, ib., Vol. XIII., p. 76, 1913 ; North, Austr. Mus. Spec. Cat., no. 1, Vol. IV., p. 92, 1913. Clangula {Oxyura) australis Selby, Cat. Gen. Subgen. Aves, p. 47, 1840. Biziura australis Schlegel, Mus. Pays-Bas, Vol. VI., Anseres, p. 11, 1866 ; Giebel, Thes. Ornith., Vol. I., p. 467, 1872. Oxyura australis victories. Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 87, 1912 ; Victoria. Oxyura australis australis Mathews, ib. Range. New South Wales ; Victoria ; Tasmania ; South Australia ; West Australia. Adult male. Upper-surface, breast, and sides of the body rich chestnut-brown becoming darker and inclining to black on the rump and upper tail-coverts and long scapulars which are vermiculated or barred with buff ; tail pale chestnut-brown ; quills also dark chestnut-brown paler on the inner webs ; entire head and neck glossy black ; breast and abdomen dusky brown with buff or silvery white tips to * The Plate is lettered Oxyura australis. 138 OXYURA AUSTRALIS . ( BLUE -BILLED DUCK). BLUE-BILLED DUCK. the feathers ; axillaries pale brown edged with white ; under wing-coverts greyish- brown tipped with white. Bill light blue ; iris very dark brown ; front and inner sides of tarsus and toes french grey, outside of tarsus and webs blackish-grey. Total length 440 mm. ; culmen 41, wing 151, tail 66, tarsus 35. Adult female. Entire upper-surface dark brown barred and vermiculated with white or buffy-white ; under-surface dusky brown with silvery white tips to the feathers. Bill dark ohve-green, under mandible lighter. Total length 415 mm. ; culmen 40, wing 150, tail 65, tarsus 35. Immature male. Differs in having the head and back browner with buff bars or vermiculations and the under-surface more silvery white. Nestling. Sooty brown above, darker on the crown of the head ; a spot of white on each wing and also on each side of the back and sides of the rump ; a pale line on each side of the head above the ear-coverts ; imder-surface whitish with a dusky bar across the fore-neck. Nest. “ Besembles that of B. lobata, large, with the flags bent down and interlaced, lined with down from the parent ” (S. A. White). Eggs. “ Clutch, four to five probably ; elhptically inclined in shape ; texture of shell coarse, surface very slightly glossy and rough ; colour, light greenish- white. Dimensions in inches ; 2.59-2.81 X 1.84-2.07 ” (Campbell). Breeding-season. “ November and December ” (S. A. White, South Austraha). Little is known of the economy of this rare Duck which was first described by Gould from West Australia. Captain S. A. White has communicated to me the following : “I have never seen this bird in any great numbers in any one place, fifteen to twenty is as many as I have seen together ; as the breeding-season approaches they disperse in pairs over the lakes and become very shy though they are a shy bird at any time. They seem to like the company of the Musk Duck, B. lobata^ and other ducks, and I have seen them playing together on the water. I have been trying for many years to get the eggs of this duck, but it was not until November, 1909, that I succeeded. Although I have often seen the ducks about in the swamps, hunt as much as I like, I could never strike their nest. Hunting about on November 19, up to the arm-pits in water amongst thick flags and reeds a large bird flopped into the water from a thick mass of broken-down flags and dived away out of sight : approaching the mass of dead flags and searching it well a neat opening was seen, and in a well-lined nest of down were the eggs, very like those of B. lobata but much smaller. Leaving the locality without touching the nest I returned some hours later with a gun : the bird left the nest in the same way as before, but showed herself for a moment as she came up, giving time to get a shot which proved her identity without a doubt. The nest was a large structure resembling a well-built B. lobata nest ; the flags were bent down and interlaced, and the inside was lined with down from the duck. I was only able to procure one more clutch which was found in somewhat the same way. The one taken 139 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. on Nov. 19, 1909, I sent to H. L. Wliite, Esq., Scone, N.S.W., for up to that time he had been unable to get these eggs. The birds lay from four to six eggs and are very late in the season, for November and December seem to be the months they lay in South Australia. Both the nests I speak of were taken in the swamps near Murray Bridge, South Australia, and these swamps are now reclaimed by the Government and are growing lucerne to-day.” Mr. J. W. Mellor writes : “ The Blue-billed Duck is a step away from the general family and linking on to the Musk Duck, it being very closely allied in its habits and nidification to the last-named species and in some districts it is known as the little Musk Duck. The birds are fairly numerous on large waters of a permanent nature, where they dive and sport about in the water much in the way of the Musk Duck, the stiff feathers being impervious to the water, and it can stay below the surface for a long time without incon- venience. They are to be found on the River Murray and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert where they have been known to breed, but the eggs are a rarity in all collections as the nests are rarely found.” Both these scant notes confirm Gould’s notes {Handb, Birds of Austr., Vol. II., p. 379, 1865) which I reprint for comparison, showing the little advancement made in our knowledge of the life-history of this bird in fifty years : “ This bird would appear to be so limited in its habitat as to be confined to the colony of Western Australia ; at least up to this time it has not been discovered in any other part of the country. Gilbert’s notes inform me that it is never seen in the rivers, either those communicating with the sea or those of the interior, and that it is only found on the lakes running parallel to and near the coast that are surrounded with high reeds and tea-trees. Its general habits resemble those of Biziura lobata; like that bird it possesses the power of remaining under water for a great length of time, and if closely hunted flaps along the surface without taking wing. Its voice is a peculiar inward tone, which the natives describe by saying, ‘ it has no voice, but makes a noise with its heart.’ ” Legge {Emu, Vol. IV., p. 108, 1905) records : “ This remarkable duck, which is extremely rare in the lowlands and first recorded from Tasmania in 1892, was not uncommon on the Great Lake, which can be looked upon as its great stronghold in this country. It was fond of taking shelter in little bays of the islands, sometimes sitting on the rocks, from which it would launch itself with a clumsy flight for a short distance, and then proceed further into the open water by diving. Five or six were seen in a flock occasionally.” The bird figured and described is a male collected on Herdsman’s Lake, West Australia, on the 10th of February, 1902. 140 Genus — B I Z I U R A . Biziura Stephens, in Shaw’s Gen. ZooL, Vol. XII., pt. ii., p. 221, 1824 . . . . . . . . . . . . Type B. Idbata. Also spelt — Bizeura Ej^on, Annals Mag. Nat. Hist., Vol. VII., p. 177, 1841. Hydrobates Temminck and Laugier, Plan. Color d’Ois., 68® livr., Vol. IV., pi. 406, 1826 (not Hydrohates Boie, 1882) . . . . . . . . . . . . Type B. lohata. Also spelt — Hygrdbates Lichtenstein, Verz. samml. NeuhoUand, p. 6, 1837. Large Anatine birds with very short, deep broad bill, with a leathery lobe hanging from the interramal space, short wings, long stiff tail, short stout legs and feet. The bill is very short, shorter than the head, very deep and broad ; it is steeply conical and from the fore-head to the gape runs back sharply, the measurement from gape to tip exceeding that from tip to the frontal feathers bv less than half the chord of the culmen. The nostrils are small ovals V placed about half-way from the tip on each side of a very ill-defined culmen ridge ; the nail is broad, not distinctly differentiated and little overhanging. The lateral edges of the upper mandible are straight, furnished internally with comb-like lamellae. The under mandible is very broad, the rami enclosing a triangular unfeathered tract from which depends a nearly circular, leathery lobe, very much developed in the male but less so in the female which is also a smaller bird ; the rami are flattened and the nail obscurely marked. The head carries a short “ mane ” and the neck is short. The wing is short, the feathers narrow and pointed with the second primary longest, the first longer than the fourth but less than the third. The tail consists of twenty-four stiff narrow feathers, the upper tail-coVerts are short and insignificant ; the tail is about half the length of the wing. The legs are short and stout ; the metatarsus covered with reticulate scales, a little coarser in front, but not scutes ; the metatarsus is about half the length of the tail and longer than the culmen. The toes are very stout and long, fully webbed ; the outer toe is subequal with the middle, which is more than one-third the length of the wing or twice the chord of the culmen. The hind toe is short and strongly lobed. I have already suggested that this Duck shows such superficial features that anatomical investigation would force its separation from the Erismaturinoe into a separate subfamily. 141 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. Eyton’s notes on its anatomy showed that it possessed many peculiar characters, but Forbes when he studied the bird did not emphasize any of these, though he observed some without comment. In the nestling the peculiar interramal lobe is well marked, so that this must be a very ancient feature. That such a strange character should be accompanied by others equally as unusual would be a commonplace conclusion, and an anatomical study of the nestling by a competent worker would be a welcome addition to our present knowledge. 142 BIZIURA WESTRALIS. dVESTEKlI MUSK -DUCKJ . Order AN8ERIF0RME8 No. 272. Family ANATIDJE. BIZIUEA LOBATA LOBATA. WESTERN MUSK DUCK. (Plate 218.)* Anas lobata Shaw and Nodder, Naturalists’ Miscellany, Vol. VIII., pi. 255, 1796 ; King George’s Sound, West Australia. Anas lobata Shaw and Nodder, Nat. Miscell., Vol. VIII., pi. 255, 1796 ; Dumont, Diet. Sci. Nat. (Levrault), Vol. VI., p. 387, 1817 ; Lesson, Traite d’Orn., p. 630, 1831. Lobated Duck Latham, Gen. Synops. Birds Suppl., Vol. II., p. 349, 1801. Anas carunculata (not lUiger 1811) VieiUot, Nouv. Diet, d’Hist. Nat., Vol. V., p. 109, 1816 (West Australia) ; id., Tabl. Ency. Meth. Om., Vol. I., p. 356, pi. 236, fig. 2, 1820. Biziura novdehollandios Stephens in Shaw’s Gen. Zool., Vol. XII., pt. ii., p. 222, fig. in frontispiece 1824 (West Australia). Hydrobates lobatus Temminek and Laugier, Plan. Color d’Ois., 68® livr., Vol. IV., pi. 406, 1826 ; Lesson, Manuel d’Orn., Vol. II., p. 414, 1828 ; Breton, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1834, p. 19 ; Lesson, Compl. de Buff. Ois., Vol. IX., p. 529, 1837. Hygrobates lobatus Lichtenstein, Verz. samml. Neuholl., p. 6, 1837. Biziura lobata Eyton, Monogr. Anatidse, p. 168, 1838 ; Gray, List Genera Birds, p. 75, 1840 ; id., ib., 2nd ed., p. 96, 1841 ; id.. List Birds Brit. Mus., pt. iii., p. 145, 1844 ; id.. Genera Birds, Vol. III., p. 627, 1844 ; Gould, Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 18, 1844 (part) ; Reichenbach, Synops. Av. Natat., pi. 81, figs. 145-6 and 904, 1845 ; Bonaparte, Comptes Rendus Sci. (Paris), Vol. XLIII., p. 652, 1856 ; Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 381, 1865 (part) ; Schlegel, Mus. Pays-Bas, Anseres, Vol. VI., p. 7, 1866 ; Gray, Handl. Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. m., p. 90, 1871 ; Giebel, Thes. Ornith., Vol. I., p. 467, 1872 ; Sundevall, Meth. Nat. Av. Disp. Tent., p. 150, 18^ ; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. II., p. 200, 1878 (part) ; Sclater, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1880, pp. 529, 535 ; id., ib., 1882, p. 311 ; Eorbes, ib., pp. 455-8 ; Ramsay, Tab. List Austr. Birds, p. 22, 1888 (part) ; Heine and Reichenow, NomencL Mus. Hein. Orn., p. 349, 1890 (part) ; Salvador!, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVII., p. 452, 1895 (part) ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., p. 108, 1899 (part) ; Campbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 1053, 1901 (part) ; Carter, Emu, Vol. III., p. 212, 1904 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 108, 1906 (part) ; Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 37, 1908 (part ; Ogilvie-Grant, Ibis 1910, p. 173 ; Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 240, 1912 (part) ; North, * The Plate is lettered Biziura westralis. 143 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. Austr. Mus, Spec. Cat., no. 1, Vol. IV., p. 94, 1913 (part) ; Orton and Sandland, Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 76, 1913 ; Mathews, List Birds Austr., p. 94, 1913 (part). Oidemia {Hydrobates) lobatus Selby, Cat. Gen. Subgen. Aves, p. 47, 1840. Biziura lobata westralis Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 87, 1912 ; West Australia. Biziura lobata lobata Mathews, ib. Disteibftion. West Austraha. Adult male. General colour above blackish-brown barred with buff like the fore-neck and the sides of the body, the remainder of the under-surface a httle paler brown, wings similar in colour to the back but almost uniform ; crown of the head and the hind-neck glossy black with spine-like feathers on the fore-head ; axiUaries barred with pale brown and white ; quill-hning pale grey ; tail-feathers much stiffened, black in colour and lanceolate in form. BiU dark blue-grey ; eyes reddish-hazel ; legs and feet lead-grey. Total length 690 mm. ; culmen 40, wing 220, tail 106, tarsus 54. Adult female. Similar to the adult male but smaller and having the crown of the head brown instead of black. Total length 490 mm. ; culmen 34, wing 185, tail 87, tarsus 41. Nestling-in-down. Sooty black on the entire upper-surface, throat and fore-neck ; breast and abdomen dull white. Having a series of twelve specimens of both male and female in my collection, I notice that there is a great difference in the size of the lobe which varies from three inches in the breeding bird to a quarter of an inch in non-breeding plumage. I observe, too, that the birds with the larger lobe are very dark below, whereas those with the smaller size are much greyer on the under-surface. I imagine, therefore, that the latter must be the winter plumage. Nest. A large structure somewhat similar to that of the Eastern bird. Eggs. Similar to those of the Eastern bird. This bird was figured and described by Shaw and Nodder in the Naturalists’ Miscellany, Vol. VIII., pi. 255, 1796, under the name Anas lobata, when they wrote : “ This curious species is a native of New Holland, and is about the size of a common Duck. The specimen is preserved in the British Museum, and was brought over by Mr. Archibald Menzies, who accompanied Captain Vancouver in his late voyage.” The latter sentence escaped my notice when I made up my Reference List ” and I there designated New South Wales as the type locality, as the majority of the earlier birds received from Australia came from that locality. A recent reference to the Naturalists’ Miscellany enabled me to rectify this error, as a slight knowledge of the history of the early Investigators was sufficient to show that this was wrong : Captain Vancouver never went to New South Wales but simply called at West Australia and went from there to New Zealand. I at once looked up Vancouver’s “ Voyage ” to see if any reference was made to this bird, and on p. 52 of Vol. I., 1798, I noted : “ October, 1791. King George Sound, West Australia. Though ducks were in great numbers. 144 WESTERN MUSK DUCK. we were very unsuccessful in taking them. A very peculiar one was shot, of a darkish grey plumage, with a bag like that of a lizard hanging under its throat, which smelt so intolerably of musk that it scented nearly the whole ship.” This fixes exactly the locality,, and I further found that Mr. Archibald Menzies was surgeon and botanist, and this is certainly the bird Shaw and Nodder described. All the synonyms were based upon this bird, so that no name is available for the Eastern bird as I named the Western form also, accepting the wrong East t3rpe locality. In the Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1834, p. 19, there is a letter from Lieut. Breton stating : “ These birds are so extremely rare, that he saw only three of them during his various excursions, which extended over twelve hundred miles of country. He had never heard of any instance in which more than two were seen together. They are met with only on the rivers, and in pools left in the otherwise dry beds of streams. It is extremely difficult to shoot them, on account of the readiness with which they dive : the instant the trigger is drawn, the bird is under water.” Mr. Tom Carter writes : “A common species throughout the South- west, but only once seen by me in the Mid-west. December 10, 1912. I saw one on the Roads Board water tank (about twenty yards square) close to Broome Hfil township and alongside a much frequented high road.” Mr. A. W. Milligan {E7nu, Vol. II., p. 106, 1902) has observed : “ A company of these birds, numbering some eight or nine, were moving about the shallows on the South Perth side, about 100 yards from the course of the ferry boat. My attention was drawn by a succession of ‘ ponks,’ intermingled with similar monosyllabic notes, which appeared to be the same sound stripped of its resonance. The surmise proved to be correct, as I plainly perceived. The ‘ ponk ’ followed the action of the bird (which appeared to be the male bird disporting himself before the females) when he thrust his head quickly under the water. Simultaneously with the thrusting of the head under the water the bird struck the water with tlie feet and swished the tail. The lighter and less resonant sound was uttered above water, and was accompanied with -a prolongation of the neck and a lateral swish of the tail. It is quite probable that the striking of the water with the foot, mentioned in the former case, has given rise to the local idea that the sound was produced by such action and not in the normal way.” In the Austral Avian Record^ Vol. I., p. 87, 1912, I separated the Eastern form from the Western Musk Duck, and accepting the Eastern bird as typical, named the Western one. In my List of the Birds of Australia, 1913, p. 94, I lumped them as there did not seem to be enough differences, as the species VOL. IV. 145 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. seemed to show considerable variation which I was unable to account for. I have again studied these birds and I think that the differences observed seem constant, notwithstanding the plumage variation which appears due to age. I have separated the two forms and anticipate that more material wiU emphasize the differences. It will be observed that little is known of the economics of either race, but that particularly we know nothing of that of the typical or Western form. The bird figured and described is a male collected on Herdsman’s Lake, West Australia, on the 7th of September, 1901, and is the type of westralis. 146 Order ANSERIF0RME8 No. 273. Family ANATIDJE. BIZIURA LOBATA MENZIESI. EASTERN MUSK DUCK Biziura LOBATA MENZIESI Mathows, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. II., p. 90, 1914 ; New South Wales. Biziura lobata Gould, Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 18, 1844 (part) ; Stokes, Discov. in Austr., Vol. I., App., p. 483, 1846 ; Sturt, Narr. Exped. Cent. Austr., Vol. II., App., p. 57, 1849 ; Blyth, Cat. Birds Mus. As. Soc. Beng., p. 308, 1852 ; Pelzeln, Reise Novara Vogel., p. 139, 1865 ; Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 381, 1865 (part) ; Ramsay, Ibis 1867, p. 413, pi. viii., fig. 1 (egg) ; MuUer, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Bond.) 1869, p. 280 ; Biggies, Birds Austr., Vol. II., pi. 117, 1877 ; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. I., pp. 196, 216, 219, 1877 ; Saunders, Ibis 1883, p. 351; Legge, Papers Proc. Roy. Soc. Tasm. 1886, p. 245, 1887 ; id., ib., 1887, p. 97, 1888 ; Ramsay, Tab. List Austr. Birds, p. 22, 1888 (part) ; North, Austr. Mus. Cat., no. 12, p. 346, 1890 ; Heine and Reichenow, Mus. Hein. Om., p. 349, 1890 (part) ; Bennett, Ibis 1891, p. 145 ; Hartert, Katal. Vogels Mus. Senckenb., p. 233, 1891 ; Salvador!, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVII., p. 452, 1895 (part) ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., p. 108, 1899 (part) ; Campbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 1053, 1901 (part) ; Hill, Emu, Vol. II., p. 167, 1903 ; Littler, ib., Vol. III., p. 216, 1904 ; Legge, ib., Vol. IV., p. 108, 1905 ; D’Ornbrain, ib., p. 163, 1905 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 108, 1906 (part) ; Batey, Emu, Vol. VII., p. 17, 1907 ; Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 37, 1908 (part) ; Fletcher, Emu, Vol. VIII., p. 213, 1909 ; Broadbent, ib., Vol. X., p. 245, 1910 ; Littler, Handb. Birds Tasm., p. 228, 1910 ; Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 240, 1912 (part) ; Stone, Emu, Vol. XII., p. 121, 1912 ; White, ib., Vol. XII., p. 161, 1913 ; !North, Austr. Mus. Spec. Cat., no. 1, Vol. IV., p. 94, 1913 (part) ; Stone, Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 83, 1913 ; Mathews, List Birds Austr., p. 94, 1913 (part) ; White, Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 124, 1914. Biziura lobata menziesi Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. II., p. 90, 1914. Distribution. New South Wales ; Victoria ; Tasmania ; South Australia. Adult male. Differs from B. 1. lobata in being fighter and the bands on the back being white instead of buff ; the lobe under the bill is also smaller. Female. Similar to the female of B. 1. lobata. Nest. Placed in the reeds, and formed by bending them so as to form a nest fined with grass and down ; egg cavity measured three inches deep by six inches wide. 147 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. Eggs. Clutch, two or three ; ground-colour pale green ; surface rough and slightly glossy. Axis 75-84 mm. ; diameter 52-54. Breeding -season. August to December. I HAVE more notes than usual in connection with this Duck, as it has been * more closely observed on account of its many peculiarities, but it will be conceded that really little is known of its life-history, and yet a more interesting topic for study could scarcely be found. Miss J. Fletcher has written from Tasmania : “In the Cleveland Lagoon one old Drake was quite a familiar feature. He used to swim over the open water at a great pace and evidently enjoyed himself, as he would travel backwards and forwards across the same stretch of water. The noise he made could be heard plainly at the edges and occasionally he would give a grunt. In Diprose Lagoon these Ducks would be swimming about and when observed would dive and come up further on or seek shelter in the rushes. They appeared to eat the white masses of frogs’ spawn which at certain times is found clinging to the reeds. From the observations of my sisters and myself, I have come to the conclusion that the female does not build or make her nest until she actually requires it and the first egg is sometimes laid in the unfinished nest. When the second egg is laid, down is added, and by the tune incubation is finished the nest is indeed snug. When robbed, the bird after a week or so makes a nest in almost the next clump of reeds. Should misfortune attend this clutch she sometimes returns to the first nest. I have noted three instances where the Musk Duck made her nest under that of a Swamp Hawk {Circus gouldi), probably because the latter generally chooses thick clumps of reeds on which to place her nest. The Musk Duck lays an egg every day and as a rule sits as soon as the second egg is laid. Clumps of reeds surrounding or bordering lakelets in the lagoons are favoured localities. When disturbed the female dives straight from the mouth of the nest into the water below and so gets away. A tiny reed-covered lagoon in extent about two acres was too deep to search at the beginning of the season. At the end of November an examination revealed eleven nests of these Ducks with hatched egg-sheUs, and judging by the egg-sheU fragments several clutches must have been composed of three eggs. Never once have I been lucky enough to see the ducklings swimming about. In one instance a musk duck had laid her clutch of three in a nest in which had been left a last season’s egg. This egg I broke and found in it a full-grown duckling covered with black down, and with bill, feet and legs black. It was too putrid to put in spirits. The lagoons were constantly rising, owing to the frequent heavy rains, and in several of the nests the eggs were really in water. I weighed 148 EASTERN MUSE DUCK. three clutches of eggs. Two sets of two eggs each weighed one pound exactly, while a clutch of three turned the scale at one and a half pounds. These sets were fresh. One of the two clutches is the one I sent you.” Mr. Edwin Ashby has sent me the following interesting note : “ On two occasions we surprised a little one only recently hatched, and were much interested in seeing the little fellow swim at its utmost speed to the side of its father and then clamber up on his back and go oh pig-a-back. It was quite a comical sight to see the little chap perched up on the back of its parent and being floated off into a place of safety. On one occasion we dropped on to a little hatchling (that seems a better word than fledgling for a bird that does not fly) and decided to row him down. The pace he paddled was something great, but our oars were too much for him ; so he doubled back and dodged us round and round and in and out of a small bush, uttering aU the time cries of distress, between a scream and a M quack.” Captain S. A. White writes : “ When hunting in the swamps I saw a great deal of these birds, and many of their ways are very quaint. I have seen the male place his bill on his tail and then propel himself at a great speed in a circular motion keeping it up for quite a time. They build their nests in the thickest part of the flags, bending them down and interlacing them with others, forming a nice snug nest well lined with their own down. Yet I have found nests of the rudest construction possible in quite exposed positions. The number of eggs varies very much ; two eggs have often been found well incubated, and it is not uncommon to find six eggs in a clutch.” The following note by Captain White {E7nu, Vol. IX., p. 166, 1910) seems worthy of reproduction : “I am not aware if any of the readers of The E7nu ever noticed that when the Musk-Duck {Bizium lobata) makes the deep-toned note it also throws out a jet of water on either side, caused evidently by a rapid motion of the feet. This occurrence has often puzzled me, but of late a peculiar incident came under observation. A Bald-Coot {Porphyrio 7mlanonotus) which had been wounded, was observed to be making frantic efforts to escape from a Hawk. The latter bird had made up its mind to have that Coot at all risks, and was making drive after drive, in its characteristic manner, to tire out the Coot, and at each rush the Coot was seen to edge closer and closer to a fine old male Musk-Duck who was placidly floating in the deep water, caring not a straw for the Hawk. At last the poor terrified Coot reached the Duck’s side, and as the Hawk renewed its charges, attempting to hit its victim on the head with its powerful wing, the Coot dodged from one side of the Duck to the other, and it was now that 149 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. tlic Musk-Duck l)6ga»ii to take an active part j for, strange to say, every time the Hawk made a swoop down upon the Coot the old Duck gave forth a deep sound and splashed up the water behind him, and the time was so well judged that the Hawk received the full force of the water. Three desperate efforts were made, but after the third dousing the Hawk took himself off in disgust, but the old Musk-Duck floated on in his majestic style as if nothing had occurred or he had not saved the life of a wounded friend.” Mr. A. G. Campbell confirms Capt. White’s account of their (probably) nuptial display thus : “ The male bird is very fond of showing off while on its inland nesting haunts. With head thrown back, pouch inflated and tail spread out over its back it spins around in the water, looking more like a huge shuttlecock than a duck. It varies the performance by scooping quantities of water into the air with its feet. The splash it makes would do credit to a much larger bird.” Mr. J. W. Mellor states : “ These birds will not live in captivity as they require a wide scope of water in which to procure their food : they are expert divers, and resemble the cormorant in their dexterity in the water in which they practically live. It is simply surprising to watch them dive and the distance they will swim underneath the water before making their appearance again on the surface, and then only a head and neck, if they are pursued, and down again if danger is still near. The drake gives off a peculiar musky odour while sporting in the water and I have frequently become aware of the presence of the birds by the smeU of this odour alone. They are a cumber- some or coarse-fleshed bird, and seldom or never take to the wing, depending solely to their diving and swimming powers to save them from being captured or kflled. They are hard to kill, as they are under the water before the shot from the gun reaches them. I have seen them plentifully dispersed over the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert, also up the River Murray : they also take to the sea and sport in the bays and inlets where the water is comparatively quiet. When disturbed they flap along the top of the water with remarkable rapidity, going sometimes quite a quarter of a mile or more before settling down again : they go along in this way by means of their legs and wings and seem to simply walk on the water.” In the E7nu, Vol. II., p. 210, 1903, A. G. Campbell notes at King Island : “When swimming fast to get away from an intruder, like a ship at high speed, this bird sinks deeply into the water, only the head and neck being visible.” Mr. A. J. Campbell instigated a discussion as to the question of flight by these birds and gives a long account of his results in his Nests and Eggs. 150 EASTERN MUSK DUCK. There can be no further question as to their flying both strongly and swiftly, but they apparently do not commonly indulge in this practice during the day but are not averse to flight in the evening. A single addition to Campbell’s many records may be cited. Mr. C. G. Hamilton in the Emu, Vol. I., p. 147, 1902, writes : “ We had a shooting trip lately, and I was with a friend when he shot a Musk-Duck in mistake for a Black Duck. The bird was flying high over us, and was going very fast. It must have come from another swamp, which is about a mile distant. This occurred just at duslc.’’^ 151 Order— P ELECANIFORMES. This Order cannot be regarded as superficially a homogeneous assemblage a term I used in connection with the preceding Order. Heterogeneous would seem to be a more appropriate term, but upon deeper study the apparent polyphyletic association becomes less marked, though still negative features seem to predominate in grouping the varied forms here classed together. In the case of the Anseriformes the Order was coincident with one family. In the present case, six very distinct families are admitted, and in the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, where the Order was monographed by that conservative worker Mr. W. E. Ogilvie-Grant in 1898, five families and one subfamily still appear ; when it is noted that each family and subfamily are not further subdivided but all the species, few or many, in each division are referred to a single genus, the term conservative will not seem Hi-applied. Linne, in 1758, admitted two genera, but Brisson in 1760 admitted five of the six genera Ogilvie-Grant used in 1898; such a remarkable instance of conservatism surely cannot be equalled in any other branch of science. This is merely due to the inability to separate family characters from those of less value, a common enough error made by careless workers when dealing with large birds, and one that has persisted, on the score of convenience, for 150 years. The lumping school of the present day use these indefinite genera as it makes progress easy, and difficult problems connected with the phylogenetic evolution of groups are thereby shirked. The disposal of a bird in this manner retards progress and no advance in the history of the evolution of the bird group is made, but confusion perpetuated to the sorrow of the philosophical worker. The determination of subspecific forms seems to be the all-in-all of some present day workers, and when such provide geographical papers of no value from a philosophical point of view they fail to adduce any conclusions produced by their efforts. Monography is scarcely indulged in, the Catalogue of the Birds of the British Museum being the best attempt, but of course that was primarily a Catalogue, and though serious efforts were made by some of the compilers to produce permanent records others were as careless of the result obtained. In the present work I am unable to monograph the birds of the world, but I hope to deal thoroughly with all the endemic groups, which will now shortly come under consideration. 152 PELECANIFORMES. The preceding remarks were induced through the study of this Order. Ogilvie-Grant, in 1898, scarcely modified the Brissonian genera of 1760, and because this expression of reaction was published in the Catalogue of the Birds of the British Museum it has been widely accepted. In the preceding Order I pointed out that the work in the Catalogue of the Birds of the British Museum had been performed by Count Salvadori, a careful and accurate worker and a genus-splitter, and that his genera had been generally maintained without criticism ; in the present Order the compiler was a genus-lumper, and the genera, though obviously polyphyletic, have been as uncritically utilised. Many good workers had previously effected subdivision of the Brissonian genera, but these Ogilvie-Grant quite ignored : in my opinion subdivision is necessary and the genera utilised by Ogilvie-Grant do not portray the facts. As instance, the genus Sula has the range “ Temperate and Tropical seas.” This does not indicate that some forms, which to me constitute a genus, are confined to Temperate seas and are never found in the Tropics, and that others are confined to the Tropics and never live in the Temperate regions. These groups differ in many important characters which are constant in widely separated areas. I will deal with these later, but simply note the above in passing. If the differences here observed are not of generic value what must the confusion become when the Passeriformes are examined with a similar standard ? For some inexplicable reason a combination of different colours becomes sufficient when a Passerine bird is examined ; e.g. Ogilvie-Grant himself recently proposed a new genus Pseudacanthis, the main generic feature being that it looked something like a Linnet but not quite ; it didn’t have a red head. Without prejudice it would look more like a Linnet than some Gannets resemble each other. But really the reverse is the truth : a small difference in an ancient form like a Gannet would mean much g:i^eater difference from an evolutionary view-point than a huge difference in a recent product like a small Passerine bird. I can only conclude that the generic and subgeneric differentiation of birds is as important, or more so, as the subspecific differentiation so freely indulged in. It must be more useful from a geographical point of view (which subspecies-makers so highly extol), to remark that a country has evolved, or is inhabited by, a different type of bird than that it has only produced a slightly differently coloured form. The latter are so very easily modified by climate that in Australia, where hundreds of different fairly permanent climatic conditions exist, hundreds of subspecies are co-existent. Lack of study of such by extra-limital workers acquainted VOL. IV. 153 THE BIRHS OF AUSTRALIA. only with their own rather permanent and little changing weather conditions has caused them to seriously blunder when confronted with Australian birds. Many instances will later be shown. In the present Order the birds constituting it are all Ancient types, and as such have become fixed, showing several generic forms but not many easily discernible subspecific alterations. As a matter of fact, Ogilvie-Grant hardly recognised any, but then in his case a strong prejudice against such was allowed to obscure his judgment. The study of juvenile forms immensely helps in the determination of phylogenetic relationships, but such has not yet been undertaken seriously by any British ornithologist who should be able to command long series showing plumage growth from nestling to adult hut who generally cannot. The recent discussion with regard to the plumage changes of the Common Cormorant of the British Isles gives a clear confirmation of the preceding remarks. The Order Pelecaniformes is characterised by the nature of the feet, the toes being fully webbed, the hind toe being united to the inner toe by a web. The birds are mostly of large size, some very large and few are small : the bill obviously differs in the families, in some being stout, straight and conical, in others long, thin and hooked. In some families the bill has the nostrils obliterated in the adult, in others the nostrils are obvious. The wings are usually long, sometimes very long, while the tail may be long, short or very long, rounded, wedge-shaped or deeply forked. (Memo.— A forked tail never appears among the Anseriformes.) Gular pouches are a general feature, though sometimes obsolete, sometimes even absent. They are mostly marine birds, but one family consists of river-dwelling evolutionists, while others sometimes go far inland to breed, though the majority pass the time at sea and breed on isolated islands in congregations. Practically all are gregarious at the breeding-season. The apparent heterogeneity of such a grouping has constantly attracted thinking systematic workers, and no definite line of evolution has yet been suggested for some of the members. A recent attempt to satisfy queries was made by W. P. Pycraft in Proc. Zool. Soc. (Bond.) 1898, pp. 82-101, who concluded: “(1) All are closely related; (2) they cannot be broken up to form one or more suborders or subdivisions of equal value ; but that (3) they must be regarded as a whole, as a suborder . . .” It is quite impossible to accept Pycraft’ s conclusions upon his own premises, though they may be correct. The chief stumbling-blocks in the Order are Fregata and PhcBthon, and Pycraft does not satisfy the demands of either. Thus he writes : “ The most important witness to the integrity of the suborder is the skuU. Three types can be easily distinguished. . . . The 154 PELECANIFOEMES. first of these is the most primitive . . . Phalacrocorax and Plotus belong to this first type. . . . Our second type is found in the skulls of Phcethon and Pelecanus, but, beyond this, the two skulls appear to have little else in common. The skull of PhcEthon appears to be the least specialised of the whole group, and presents characters which are not only found in all, or nearly all the other Steganopodes, but which also occur in forms outside this suborder. ... A vomer occurs only in Phcethon and Fregata. . . Fregata may be regarded as a link connecting Phcethon, which is undoubtedly one of the least specialised and most primitive of the Steganopodes, with the ProcellariiformesP I cannot reconcile such statements and consider more study necessary before the exact position of Phcethon, especially, can be correctly determined. However, for the present purpose the Pelecaniformes can be recognised as an Order, but further research may make subdivision necessary. The six families may be shortly diagnosed thus : Family Phalacrocoracidce are large birds, but for this Order comparatively small ones, with long thin hooked bills showing nostrils obscurely, medium wings, long neck with gular pouch and medium cuneate tail ; tarsus short, but toes long, the outer one longest and the others regularly decreasing in size ; all fully webbed. Family Anhingidce are larger birds with long, slender, straight and pointed bills showing obscure nostrils, no gular pouch, very long slender neck with a fixed “ kink ” in it, long cuneate tail and medium wings, short tarsus and long toes. Phylogenetically this is an evolution product of the former, but is now so well differentiated as to unhesitatingly demand family rank. The distribution of the species is erratic, somewhat agreeing with that of the Tree Ducks in the preceding Order. Family Sulidce are very large birds with long, stout, conical, straight pointed bills, with nostrils closed in the adult state so as not to be seen : neck stout and short with small gular pouch, long wings and long regular wedge- shaped tail, short tarsus and long toes. The metatarsus is stout and ^strong and comparatively long for the Order. The birds are large and heavy, being very stoutly built. Family Fregatidce are large birds with long, slender, but broadish, hooked bills, nostrils open, long neck, and gular pouches very large and distensible in the breeding male, very long wings and very long deeply-forked tail. The tarsus is so short as to be almost negligible, and the toes long, the connecting webs deeply emarginate. Though these birds are large they are very slight and the body is comparatively very small. The very long forked tail is characteristic and is not otherwise seen in the Order. 155 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. Family PhcBthonidcB are large to small (for this Order) birds, with long stout slightly curved but pointed bills with open nostrils, long wings, long tail with middle feathers immensely elongated, generally one and a half times to twice the length of the wing, short tarsus and toes. The toes are all connected with webs, but the form is normal, the middle-toe being longest and the hind one short and placed posteriorly. The extreme elongation of the tail feathers easily distinguishes this group, while the birds are apparently bulky and the wings comparatively short. Yet they are capable of the most extended flight, being seen further away from land than any other bird, including the preceding much vaunted “King of the Air.” The Family PelecanidcB are very large birds with immensely long depressed broad hooked bills, with huge gular pouch, long wings, short tail evenly rounded, and long (for this Order) legs and feet. The huge pouched bill characterise this family which consists of very large stoutly-built birds with legs stout and large. The bill is more than half the length of the wing and twice the length of the tail. The preceding sketch shows the diverse elements herewith associated, as nothing could be much more unlike than the large airy Fregata and the very large solid Pelecanus, while the bills of Fregata and PJioethon show as much divergence. It might be observed that in manners these groups show just as much diversity, Pelecanus being a dweller on the ground, Anhinga being a river swimmer constantly in the water ; Phcethon and Fregata are only at home in the air, being quite helpless on the ground as the extreme shortness of the legs and length of their wings testify, while species of Phalacrocorax and 8ula are only on land for the breeding-season and otherwise live on the sea, though they are splendid flyers. All the Order are practically solely fish-eaters. Ogilvie-Grant’s Family Phalacrocoracidoe is subdivided into two sub- families, PJialacrocoracince and Plotince, covering two genera only. I consider these as families and would divide the former into several genera though the latter covers one genus only. The genera in the Family Phalacrocoracidce are well marked and easily diagnosed. Genera were proposed by Reich enbach in 1852 and utilised by Bonaparte in 1855. Careful workers such as Salvador!, in the brflliant Orn. Papuasia, made use of them, though at that time he did not recognise the genera in the Anseriforfnes that he later approved of when monographing the group. The publication of the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum produced, as usual when the worker was retrogressive, a retrograde action, and this is noted in the American Ornithologists’ Union Cheek-List, 3rd edition, 1910. Only one genus appears though three subgenera are admitted. 156 PELECANIFOEMES. The differential characters of the genera will be fnlly discussed in their place, but the Australian species number five and these are allotted to four genera. The first, Phalacrocorax, is represented throughout the whole of the Old World and on the eastern coast of North America. The Australian representative is simply a subspecies of the single species which thus has such a wide range. The second genus, Mesocarbo, seems to be confined to Australia and New Zealand. The third genus, Hypoleucus, of which two members are found mostly in Southern Australia, although ranging to Queensland, is Subantarctic in distribution, many species occurring at New Zealand, South America, Falkland Islands and Kerguelen Land. The fourth, Microcarbo, though extending to New Zealand, is an immigrant into Australia from the North, though now the commonest member of the family. Its relations are with the South European M. pygm(Bus, which ranges into Eastern Asia, and M. javanicus, which continues from India to Borneo. The lumping of aU these different forms into one genus loses sight of such peculiar distribution as the preceding, which is clearly observed by means of natural genera. The sole representative of the second family Anhingidce is, however, referable to the genus Anhinga {Plotus) which is divisible into four species, one of which lives in tropical and subtropical America, the second in Africa, the third in Southern Asia and the last practically confined to Australia but occurring in Southern New Guinea. Here no subdivision is practicable, and when such is shown in conjunction with similarly constituted genera the lessons of distribution become well marked. To the family Sulidce, the genus Sula of Brisson 1760, and Ogilvie- Grant 1898, four species are referred, each in my opinion referable to a distinct genus. Again by means of such genera distributional facts of great value are shown. Thus Sula Brisson is typified by the Pelecanus sula Linne, and this is a smallish Gannet of white coloration : it is confined to the Tropics and Subtropics ranging throughout the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans. So little differentiation can be observed that Ogilvie-Grant considered that only one form was recognisable. Good subspecific characters seem howev^er to exist in the coloration of the “ soft parts.” The plumage changes also need careful study, but no long series have yet been collected on account of the size 157 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. of the birds and the trouble and time necessary to prepare specimens. In fact, it is only due to the paucity of material that the subspecific forms have not long since been well defined. The tail is very long and composed of fourteen to sixteen feathers. The second genus, which I call Sulita, is that represented by the famous “ Gannet with a history,” the Pelecanus bassanus of Linne. This bird is confined to the North Atlantic, ranging south in winter only as far as the Canary Islands, yet it has a close ally on the south coasts of South Africa which in winter gets as far north as Loango and Zanzibar. Then with another wide hiatus it reappears on the south coasts of Australia and New Zealand in the species known as Sula serrator. The close relationship between these forms can be gauged by the fact that at one time I ranked the Australian form as only subspecifically separable from the European one. The difference apparent lies in the coloration of the tail feathers, otherwise the three forms very closely agree. They are all large Gannets of white coloration with comparatively shorter tails, composed of twelve feathers only. The fact that the species differ so little in such widely separated localities as Britain and the Antipodes with no continual connection proves the fixity of the form and it must be regarded as genericaUy distinct ; there is a narrow bare patch of skin apparent on the throat and this has been utilised to confirm generic separation, but the facts seem to call for such, even without taking into consideration this detail. As I shall hereafter show, the covering of the legs and feet differ extremely in this genus from that observed in all the other Suline birds, so that its generic distinction cannot be denied by any save the most careless of workers. The third genus, Parasula, consists of large Gannets, bearing no thin naked throat-strip, having white coloration, and short tail composed of sixteen or eighteen feathers. Known as Masked Gannets, as the bare skin of the face extends behind the eyes, this form is confined to the Tropics, of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans, intervening between the Northern and Southern Atlantic species of “ Gannet ” referred to the genus Sulita. As members of both genera are large somewhat similar birds, while one species has only twelve tail-feathers, the other has sixteen to eighteen tail- feathers, the generic distinction must be obvious to any unprejudiced observer. Prejudice, however, has been allowed to bias the judgment of most past and present British ornithologists. This is easily seen by Ogilvie- Grant’s treatment of the type species of Pamsula when he wrote : “ Judging from the descriptions published by various authors, the colours of the soft parts vary greatly. . . . Too much importance must not, however, be attached to these differences.” If he had only studied these differences 158 PELECANIFOEMES. instead of ignoring them he might have been able to indicate the subspecies, but such things did not exist according to his ideas and consequently did not exist in nature. The fourth genus, He7nisula, stands quite alone in its coloration, being, instead of the usual white, dark sooty-brown above, with the neck and chest also of that colour, the breast and under-parts only being white. In a group where the fixity of coloration is proven to be a very ancient item, such vivid alteration would alone caU for generic recognition. The birds are, however, small Gannets with comparatively shorter tail as compared with the other Gannets, and fourteen tail-feathers, the same as in those. It is a tropical genus, practically coincident with the other small white Gannet but apparently with very different habits. Phylogenetically this appears to be the nearest relation, but a great deal of difference now exists. No subspecies were recognised, as usual, by Ogilvie-Grant, but that does not mean that such were non-existent, nor easily recognisable. The Family Fregatidce has only one genus, Fregata, which ranges throughout the Tropics in all oceans. Four species are now known, though only two were on record when I begun my investigations. These are fuUy dealt with later, so can be shortly dismissed here, but their distribution and plumage changes call for comment and much study and I hope my contribution will induce other and probably better situated workers to take an interest in this group. The Family Phcethontidce is represented by the single genus Phoethon in the Catalogue of the Birds of the British Museum, in the same manner as the Brissonian Fula was employed. The half dozen species there recognised represent, in my opinion, different generic types, and the two species which come into the Australian Avifauna do not come into the restricted genus Phceihon. The genus SccBO'phcethon covers large Tropic Birds of white coloration with long tail of sixteen feathers, the two middle ones being imnjiensely elongated ; the young are beautifully mottled black and white. The members of the genus Leptophcethon are small Tropic Birds of uniform coloration — white in two species, a beautiful orange in the third, with comparatively a longer tail of only twelve feathers : the young are mottled black and white as in the preceding genus. The members of both these genera range throughout the Tropics of all the oceans. The genus PhcEthon as restricted covers species which never take on the beautiful white coloration but retain in the adult the barred plumage observed in the juvenile of the preceding genera. While the tail is very long. 159 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. it is composed of fourteen feathers. Phylogenetically this would represent the oldest form, the aforementioned genera showing specialisation in two extreme ways. The last Family, Pelecanidm, again utilised generically by Ogilvie-Grant in a Brissonian manner, though Brisson named it Onocrotalus, not Pelecanus, must be divided into several genera. The single Australian species is verv well differentiated, being one of the largest Pelecans known, agreeing in size with the typical member of the genus Pelecanus, but separated from every other Pelecan by the feathered lores. Inasmuch as Pelecans vary in size and coloration immensely in various parts of the world and are a very ancient form, this apparently small item becomes a very important character when these birds are considered from a phylogenetic standpoint. This Order, then, shows a great deal of peculiarity in manner and is worthy of the closest study in every way ; series, showing plumage evolution, are desirable and also series showing structural evolution should be studied. 160 Genxts— P HALACROCORAX. Phalaceocorax Brisson, Ornith., Vol. VI., p. 511, 1760 .. Carho Lacepede, Tableau Oiseaux, p. 15, 1799 (Daudin 1802, Vol. XIV., p. 318.) Halieus Illiger, Prodromus, p. 279, 1811 Garhonarius Rafinesque, Analyse de la Nature, p. 72, 1815 (Auk, Vol. XXVI., p. 50.) Hydrocorax Vieillot, Analyse nouv. Ornith., p. 63, 1816 (not Hydrocorax Brisson, 1760) Graucalus Gray, List Genera Birds, 2nd ed., p. 101, 1841 (not Cuvier, 1816) . . Also spelt — Qracvlus Gray, Genera Birds, Vol. III., p. 667, 1846. Oormoranus Baillon, Mem. Soc. Roy. Abbev., p. 76, 1833 . . Ecmeles Gistel, Naturg. des Thier. Schul., p. ix., 1848 . . Type P. carho. Type P. carho. Type P. carho. Type P. carho. Type P. carho. Type P. carho. Type P. carho. Type P. carho. Large Phalacrocoracine birds with long hooked bills, long neck, long wings, medium tail, short legs and long toes, all the toes, including the hind one, connected with a web. The bill is long and slender, with culmen depressed, and a very sharp, prominent hook. The culmen is separated from the lateral portions by a narrow groove in which the nostrils, obsolete and scarcely apparent in the adult, are placed at about a quarter the bill’s length from the frontal feathering. The bill is longer than the head and about equal to the metatarsus in length. The under mandible is narrow, the rami enclosing a very narrow unfeathered tract, which develops into a more or less distensible gular pouch. The head is crested and the lores are bare. The wings are long with the second primary longest, the third a little shorter, almost subequal, while the first is longer than the fourth though shorter than the third ; all the primaries show scalloping. The tail is comparatively short, less than half the length of the wing and about twice the length of the culmen or metatarsus. It is wedge-shaped, composed of fourteen very stiff feathers with short, insignificant upper tad-coverts. % VOL. IV. 161 THE BIEDS OF AUSTRALIA. The legs are short, the toes long. The metatarsus is very stout, laterally compressed, reticulated throughout, the scales on the front and sides sm all but those on the hind portion very minute. The metatarsus is about ha lf the length of the tail and two-thirds the length of the outer toe. The toes are all fully connected with a web, the outer toe longest, the middle longer than the inner, the inner exceeding the hind toe. The claws are long, hooked, the middle one bearing pectinations. The preceding description applies generally to members of this family, which Ogilvie-Grant included in one genus. The genera which I admit vary in wing-formula, proportions of wing to tail, culmen, etc., and size. The succeeding generic diagnoses whl be based upon this one, comparative points being given as tending to more exactitude. Keichenbach, in his Nat. Syst. Vogel., p. vii., 1852, indicated the first subdivision of Phalacrocomx, his genera reading — Halieus 111. Type H. pygmoeus L. Gm. Hypoleucus Echb. „ H. varius L. Gm. Phakicrocorax Gesn. „ P. carho Linn. Graculus L. „ G. cristatus Faber, Gray. Bonaparte, in the Comptes Rendus Sci. (Paris), Vol. XLI., p. 1114-5, 1855, recogmsed Keichenbach’ s genera and added another, Stictocarho, for punctatus and gaimardi. The same year Gray in his Cat. Gen. Subgen. Birds, p. 133, allowed Reichenbach’s four divisions, but used — Graculus Linn, 1735 P. carho Linn. ? Graculus Kchb., 1853 P. cristatus Faber. Hypoleucus Kchb., 1853 P. varius Gmel. ? Halieus Kchb., 1853, not Illiger, 1811. P. pygmmus Pall. In the synonymy of Graculus he quoted Gulosus Mont., 1813, but this was proposed for P. cristatus Faber, and should have been used for his section division, the Graculus Kchb., 1853, not Linn. Graculus is of course untenable, as it was not used in 1758 in this sense. In 1856 the part of the Consp. Gen. Av., Vol. II., dealing with these birds by Bonaparte appeared, and there we find Phalacrocorax (p. 167), Graculus (p. 170), Hypoleucus (p. 173), Sticticarho (p. 174), Urile (p. 175), and Halimus (p. 177). With regard to Sticticarho two species are still named, gaimardi and punctatus ; of the former Bonaparte himself writes, “ Species aherrans ” and of the latter “ Species typica.^^ From this and the name formation the only possible type selection was punctatus, which was made by Salvadori in 1882, and Ogilvie-Grant erred in writing gaimardi in the Catalogue of the Birds in 162 PHALACROCOEAX. the British Museum, VoL XXVI., p. 331, 1898, as being the type in this place while correctly citing the species punctatus as type of the earlier introduction. Under his new genus Urile Bonaparte noted two sections, Urile and Leucocarbo, while after “ Halioem Bp. ex 111.,” he noted “ {Microcarbo si videbitur).” Corrections to this — probably at that time unpublished — classification were made by Bonaparte in the Comptes Rendus Sci. (Paris), Vol. XLIII., September, 1856, where Urile is noted with P. urile as type ; Sticticarbo is dismissed, as S. gairmrdi should be referred to Graculus, while S. punctatus would fall into Urile. He further raises Leucocarbo to generic rank for the American species of Hypoleucus, classing it near Urile. On p. 577, Microcarbo is fuUy proposed for Haliceus Rchb. nec 111., and P. pygmceus is definitely named as type. Here again this is not the type given by Ogilvie-Grant in the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVI., p. 331, 1898, where P. melanoleucus is named. Bonaparte’s dismissal of Sticticarbo cannot be recognised, as that would accurately mean the replacement of Urile by that name. Salvador! in the Ornith. Papua, e Mol.^ Vol. III., 1882, genericaUy used Microcarbo and Hypoleucus, but in the former he placed C. sulcirostris Brandt. This species is separated at sight from typical Microcarbo by its short tail, and many other minor differences exist. Since Ogilvie-Grant’s retrograde treatment of this group in the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVI., 1898, no interest has been evinced with regard to its systematic classification, though in the American Ornithological Union’s Checklist, 3rd ed., 1910, under the genus name Phalacrocorax, three sub genera are admitted. 163 Order PELECANIF0RME8 No. 274. Family PHALACROCOBACIDM, PHALACROCORAX CARBO NOViEHOLLANDLE. BLACK COBMORANT. (Plate 219.)* Phalacrocorax nov^hollandi^ Stephens, in Shaw’s Gen. Zool., Vol. XIII., p. 93, 1826 ; Tasmania. New Holland Shag, Latham, Gen. Hist. Birds, Vol. X., p. 431, 1824. Phalacrocorax novcFhollandim Stephens, in Shaw’s Gen. Zool., Vol. XIII., p. 93, 1826 ; Bonaparte, Consp. Gen. Av., Vol. II., p. 169, 1856 ; Gouid, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 488, 1865 ; Ramsay, Ibis 1866, p. 335 ; id., Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1877, p. 348 ; A. G. CampbeU, Emu, Vol. II., p. 18, 1902 ; Batey, ih., Vol. VII., p. 17, 1907. Phalacrocorax carhoides Gould, Sjmops. Birds Austr., pt. iv., App., p. 7, 1838 (Tasmania) ; id., Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1837, p. 156, 1838; Eraser, ih., 1839, p. 114; Gray, List Birds Brit. Mus., pt. m., p. 184, 1844 ; Gould, Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 66, 1848; MacgiUivray, Narr. Voy. “Rattlesnake,” Vol. II., App., p. 359, 1852 ; Miiller, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1869, p. 280 ; Gray, Handl. Gren. Sp. Birds, pt. m., p. 127, 1871 ; Witmer Stone, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 144, 1913. Qraculus novmhollandke Gray, Genera Birds, Vol. III., p. 667, 1845 ; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. II., p. 203, 1877; id.. Tab. List Austr. Birds, p. 24, 1888; North, Austr. Mus. Cat., no. 12, p. 365, 1890. Graculus carhoides Reichenbach, Synops. Av. Nat., pi. 64, figs. 2549-50, 1850. Phalacrocorax carho Legge, Papers Proc. Roy. Soc. Tasm., 1886, p. 244, 1887 ; Ogilvie- Grant, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVI., p. 340, 1898 ; HaU, Key Birds Austr., p. 101, 1899 ; Campbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 971, 1901 ; MiUigan, Emu, Vol. II., p. 76, 1902 ; Hill, ih., p. 167, 1903 ; Campbell, ih., Vol. II., p. 209, 1903 ; HiU, ih., Vol. III., p. 229, 1904 ; Legge, ih., Vol. IV., p. 105, 1905 ; Le Souef, ih., p. 138 ; Nicholls, ih., Vol. V., p. 82, 1905 ; Campbell, ih., p. 145, 1906 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., p. 101, 1906 ; Austin, Emu, Vol. VII., p. 78, 1907 ; Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 37, 1908 ; Mellor, Emu, Vol. VII., p. 186, 1908 ; Mattingley, ih., Vol. VIII., p. 20, 1908 ; Hill, ih., pp. 222-223, 1909 ; Howe, ih., Vol. IX., p. 229, 1910 ; Littler, Handb. Birds Tasm., p. 197, 1910 ; Ingle, Emu, Vol. X., p. 127, 1910 ; HuU, ih., p. 257, 1911 ; Stone, ih., Vol. XII., p. 120, 1912 ; Hill, ih., p. 254, 1913 ; Agnew, ih., Vol. XIII., p. 94, 1913 ; North, Aust. Mus. Spec. Cat., no. 1, Vol. III., p. 320, 1913 ; MacgilMvray, Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 147, 1914 ; Barnard, ih., Vol. XIV., p. 41, 1914. * The Plate is lettered Carho novoehollandice. 164 H. Gronvold, del Witherby &: C° 4 - CARBO NOV^ -HOLLANDRR . I^LACK CORMORANT ) I BLACK CORMOEANT. Carho carho novmJiollandiw Mathews, Kov. ZooL, Vol. XVIII., p. 240, 1912. Carbo carho westralis Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 33, 1912 ; Swan River, West Austrahai PJialacrocorax carho novmJiollandim Mathews, List Birds Austr., p. 96, 1913. Distribution. Australia ; Tasmania. Adult male {in winter). Upper-back, scapulars, and wings greyish-brown with black margins to the feathers ; lower back, rump, and upper tail-coverts uniform blue- black ; quiUs and tail-feathers dull black with very glossy shafts ; head and neck aU round and the entire under-surface glossy black with green reflections in certain hghts ; chin and sides of the face, including the eye, white ; a few white feathers on the lower flanks. Bill yeUow, culmen purplish, naked skin gamboge- yeUow ; iris emerald-green ; feet black. Total length 780 mm. ; culmen 67, wing 357, tail 155, tarsus 60. Adult female. Similar to the adult male but smaller. In summer the adults have a white patch on the flanks and white lanceolate feathers on the neck. Immature. Distinguished by its browner appearance, especially on the head, neck, and under-parts, the absence of the white flank plumes, and in being whitish in the middle of the belly. Nest. Composed of twigs, etc., saucer-shaped, about three inches deep and 16 to 18 inches wide, placed (often in colonies) in low bushes or rocky ground. Eggs. Four (sometimes three) ; ground-colour greenish and dull, covered with a white coating of hme. Axis 59-60 mm. ; diameter 35-6. Breeding-season. August to November (Campbell). This weU-known bird was first described in the General History of Birds, Vol. X., p. 431, 1824, by Latham as: “New HoUand Shag. Length twenty inches. Bill two inches and a half long, and pale ; round the eye bare and pale yellow ; plumage on the upper-part in general black ; the feathers on the wing-coverts have pale edges, and those of the neck fringed with rufous ; under-parts paler and mottled ; tail six inches long, composed of twelve feathers, cuneiform ; legs black. . Inhabits New Holland. In some things this corresponds with the African species, but is probably distinct.” To this description two years later Stephens gave the Latin pame PJialacrocorax novGehollandim. Twelve years later Gould named the Australian bird PJialacrocorax carhoides. In the HandhooJc he accepted Stephens’ name which displaces his own given later. His remarks : “ Its habits, manners and mode of life are so precisely similar to those of the Common Cormorant of Europe, that a description of them would be superfluous : its chief food as a matter of course consists of fish,” seem to have prejudiced every observer so that nothing much is known regarding the life-history of this bird. The only note I have received is from Mr. J. W. Mellor, who states : This is not so plentiful as the other species, but can by no means be called rare, especially in the early days, although since the vigorous war waged 165 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. against all Cormorants during the past few years, this species seems to be getting scarce as far as South Australia is concerned. The destruction of the Cormorant or Shag,’ as it is often known, is a great shame, carried out under the mistaken idea that it is an enemy to manliind, by eating all the fish up, but from my experience and observations the Cormorant is one of Nature’s ‘ teeth ’ in the ‘ cogwheel ’ of her evenly-balanced machinery ; destroy one of the ‘ teeth ’ and the machinery will go wrong. In our gulfs and about the isolated islands on the coast I have noted that fish were more plentiful just where the Cormorant rookeries were situated ; some would argue ‘ of course, quite natural ’ for ‘ where the carrion is, there you will also find the vulture,’ the inference being that the Cormorant v/as there to eat up the fish, but strange to say the Cormorants were there when white man first came, and were there for aught w^e know ages previously and the fish were always plentiful, but directly the birds were destroyed, the fish gave out, which is a natural consequence, as the Cormorants live to a large extent on the enemies of the fish, such as squid, crustaceans and other predatory agents of the finny tribe. It is a pity that the people do not study the life habits of the birds, etc., more than they do instead of judging from appearances. The Cormorant will catch fish, but more often than not it overtakes and eats those that are weakly and physically unfit for reproduction ; this is feasible, as the healthy vigorous fish is more able to take care of itself in the water than the Cormorant is to catch it. The result is that the birds in eating up the weaklings carry out the survival of the fittest, and the breed is kept healthy and strong throughout the ages. I have seen the large Black Cormorant in many localities in Australia, but its main habitat is the sea coast and the many reefs and islands found in these localities. I have seen many of the birds about the mouth of the Port Adelaide River, but it is practically non est there now. I have also seen these birds at the Murray mouth and on Lakes Alexandxina and Albert in South Australia ; they are unmistakable from any other members of the family on account of their great size and jet black coloration, there being occasionally a little speckling of whitish feathers on the neck, which is not seen at a distance. I have seen them at the Reed-beds in South Australia but at no great distance from the sea-coast. On the Coorong a few of these were seen, but they were extremely wild and wary, and we could not get within easy reach of them ; they were generally seen in the water, or flying past well out of harm’s way ; in the water they often go in companies of twenty or more, diving and swimming about with great ease. I noted where they had built their nests in previous years on an island, there being plenty of old nests about on the low bushes and on the rocky ground, some 166 BLACK COEMORANT. being placed quite close together, while others were isolated, but sorry to relate, there was ample evidence of where the ‘ headhunters ’ had decapitated the young birds in previous years, accounting for the extreme wariness of the old birds that we saw ; there were also plenty of egg shells about, where the hunters had smashed them up in the nest and on the ground. As these birds and the other members of the family eat quantities of crustaceans, small crab, etc., besides a few fish, now that the fishermen have killed out these birds to a minimum they are being rewarded for their trouble by a terrible increase of small crabs in the Coorong waters, to the extent that when they set their nets, instead of fish, they now get them full of these crabs which eat the strands, and also eat any fish that get meshed, and of course the crabs eat up the spawn of the fish so that fish are now scarce, just a natural consequence of carelessly interfering with Nature.” The bird figured and described is a male collected at Gracemere, Queensland, on the 9th of March, 1881, and is the type of P. c. gmcemeri. As already indicated, the treatment of this group in the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVI., 1898, was, as regards generic forms, retrogressive in the extreme, so as regards species and subspecies it was not only unprogressive but unintelligible with respect to this species. On p. 340 Phalacrocorax carho is catalogued, and on p. 347 its range is given as “ The Atlantic coast of North America from Hudson’s Bay to Georgia ; South Greenland, Iceland, Faroes, thence across Europe and Asia to Kamtschatka ; southwards to the Cape of Good Hope and from the Mediterranean to the Malay Peninsula, Australia, New Zealand, and Chatham Islands.” On p. 350 Phalacrocorax filamentosus is admitted, the range reading : “ The coast of North-east Asia, from East Siberia to Amoy, S. China ; Japan.” This suggests at once that two very distinct species are here noted, and Ogilvie-Grant remarks: “This species is most nearly allied to P.ycarho, but may be distinguished at all ages by the shape of the bare space on the throat ; in the present species the feathering extends forward beyond a line drawn at right angles to the commissure of the gape, while in P. carho the feathering does not extend nearly to this line (see figs. 1 and 2, p. 340).” Why such an extraordinarily variable feature as the neck feathering in this species was taken into account I am unable to imagine, as the specimens catalogued by Ogilvie-Grant under P. carho have commonly the form figured for P. filamentosus. 167 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. A further character of P. filamentosus noted is “ the oil-green colour of the under-parts.” Specimens from Australia and New Zealand have this same oil-green under-surface coloration, but this was ignored and the birds catalogued under P. carho. A third feature of “ the adult ” of P. filamentosus was given as “ the mottled feathers bordering the throat.” It will be observed that twenty specunens are recorded under that name, but of this number only three are recognised as adult. Under P. carho, nine examples from China and Japan are placed and three of these are marked adult. In the Naturalists’ Miscellany, Vol. XIII., pi. 529, 1802, Shaw and Nodder described Pelecanus sinensis. The figure given is of a brown bird with white throat and white breast marked with brown spots or splashes. Many of the immature specimens named by Ogilvie-Grant as P. filamentosus agree very closely with this figure and Shaw’s name should be utilised in preference to Ogilvie-Grant’s choice. Apparently the only reason why it was rejected was because the plate did not show the throat-feathering according to Ogilvie-Grant’s determination. As the plate was drawn about a hundred years before, when such details were not considered, that was no just cause for dismissal. When Ogilvie-Grant’s separative character is proved absolutely valueless, Shaw and Nodder’s name must be used. It is as certainly applicable as the name chosen. A curious action on Ogjlvie- Grant s part noticeably throughout the Catalogue was the upsetting of any established name on any pretext whatever ; in the case of PhcBthon he out-heroded Herod in his recognition of the Law of Priority, while here he selected P . filamentosus, though the bird had been known for thirty years, without a dissentient, as P. capillatus. The former was given in the text, the latter on the plate in the same work, hut the plates were published before the text and therefore had priority, according to Temminck himself. A complication would be introduced were two birds so nearly allied to each other as Grant’s P. carho and his P. filamentosus living together in China and Japan. I cannot see any differences save the mottled throat, and this I conclude is seasonal or juvenile. All the immature in brown plumage have white throats, while the three specimens catalogued by Ogilvie-Grant as adult P. filamentosus have the throat mottled with dark feathers. These also show “ filamentous ” white feathers on the sides of the necks ; the dates are February and April. The bills in these birds are of the flaky surface appearance associated with young birds. Other birds from China have no dates, but have fully adult bills and heavy white neck feathering associated with P. carho. BLACK CORMORANT. An April bird procured in India shows the same kind of “ filamentous ” feathering on the neck, and it seems certain that this is seasonal and probably juvenile. I conclude that only one form of P. carbo is found in China and Japan, and that “ P. filamentosus Ogilvie-Grant ” is non-existent as a species. To revert to P. carbo recognised by Ogilvie-Grant ; his remarks read : “ Birds from the Faroe Islands, Great Britain, etc., are distinctly larger than those from India, etc., the bill being, as a rule, conspicuously larger and stouter. No great importance need, however, be attached to this difference, for the largest Indian specimens are not appreciably smaller than some of the birds from northern latitudes.” Then follows a table giving measurements of specimens which show that Indian birds are relatively smaller throughout than European specimens. No difference in coloration is given by Ogilvie- Grant, though such is apparent when series are criticized. OgQvie-Gr ant’s description of the coloration of P. carbo reads : “ General colour black, glossed with dull purplish or bluish oil-green.” The birds from the Faroe Islands, as well as being very large are of the deepest purplish gloss throughout. Northern Scotch birds agree closely and British birds are very similar in the depth of the gloss. A specimen from the South Danube is still purplish, but a little paler with a tinge of blue throughout. Indian birds show a coloration which is better described as bluish-green with a slight purplish tinge. The Chinese and Japanese birds show, as described by Ogilvie-Grant, a deep oily-green coloration, but some show a purplish tinge. Australian and Neozelanic specimens are also deep oily-green, purplish-blue being only observed in rare instances. The breeding-plumage of the British birds, according to Ogilvie-Grant, “ is generally assumed by the end of February and lasts till the beginning of April.” This agrees with the specimens under consideration. This nuptial plumage consists of white feathering on the head, neck and flanks, described by Ogilvie-Grant thus : “ Top of the head and greater part of the neck covered with long, narrow, white feathers which often hide the shorter black plumage beneath and give these parts a nearly white appearance : a large patch of white feathers on each flank.” Such a description is not applicable to the Australian bird which Ogilvie-Grant confused under the name P. carbo, as he also adds : “ The white flank-patches are retained till the middle of June and do not disappear till the end of July.” Though Gould and Buller had clearly stated the differences between the Australian and New Zealand birds and the European one, and though these , differences were obvious in the specimens he examined, Ogilvie-Grant ignored them, yet recognised P. filamentosus on characters of no value, as seen in his own series. Yet such action has been accepted by systematists because it VOL. IV. 169 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. was published in the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum. I have before intimated how that publication has been allowed to prejudice the better judgment of American ornithologists, and here is another extraordinary instance. Ogilvie - Grant included North America in his range, and all American references were included under P. carbo, but he does not catalogue a single American specimen. Yet, without comment, P. carbo, without any subspecies indicated, is included in the American Ornithological Union’s Checklist, 3rd ed., 1910, the range given being the same as that prepared by Ogilvie-Grant. Yet on the same page (p. 62) Phalacrocorax auritus (Lesson), an endemic North American bird, is divided into four subspecies. Re-consideration of P. carbo is indicated, especially as Reichenbach and Bonaparte both separated and named the North American bird. Probably many subspecies are separable when long series are available, but owing to its common occurrence such are not generally collected. As to the Australian form, it has been noted and described by nearly every Australian writer since Gould’s time as distinct, the green coloration of the under-surface, etc., being clearly written. Thus Gould writes : “ deep, glossy, blackish-green,” and Hall, though basing his diagnoses on the Catalogue of Birds, was compelled to state : “ glossed with dull green.” BuUer, in the History of Birds New Zealand, p. 325, 1873, recognised the New Zealand bird as distinct from the European one, giving as coloration “ shining greenish-black,” and wrote : “In summer the male is adorned with numerous white linear feathers, scattered over the throat and neck, and extending about half an inch beyond the permanent feathers ; but these white plumes never assume the dense character exhibited in the summer plumage of P. carbo, in which these parts, as well as the crown, appear almost entirely white.” In the Supplement, 1906, he still maintained this opinion in spite of Ogilvie-Gr ant’s “ lumping.” In general characters the Neozelanic bird agrees with the Australian and was separated by Iredale and myself in the Ibis, 1913, p. 411, as Carbo carbo steadi. The Australian form, then, differs appreciably from the European in coloration ; further in the nuptial ornamentation, the neck feathering is never as dense as in the latter, and does not appear on the top of the head and is only worn for a very short time : the white flank patch is very much smaller in the Australian form and disappears quickly so that very rarely is it observed at all ; in many specimens it is gone before the neck feathering, while in European birds it lasts much longer, as noted by Ogilvie-Grant. The Indian birds are somewhat intermediate, as they show a purplish tinge through the green, and this in conjunction with their smaller size 170 BLACK COEMORAKT. demands their recognition as a subspecific form. Study of the plumage changes may produce facts showing that these differ in different localities, as I consider “ P. filamentosus Grant ” is a form confined to China and Japan. I should sketch the subspecies as follows, and ask for investigation of the extra-Australian forms — PhalacroGorax carbo carbo Linne ; Europe. The type-locality is Sweden and this name may be applied to European and north African examples. Many synonyms abound, and it may be that valid subspecies exist in the congregation here covered by this name, and that some of these synonyms may come into use. This form is characterised by large size, deep purplish gloss, heavy nuptial ornamentation carried for a long time. Phalacrocorax carbo americanus Reichenbach ; North America. Graculus americanus Reichenb., Natat. Synops. Av., pi. xxxv®., figs. 2746-9, 1850, seems applicable, while as a synonym would be quoted — Phalacrocorax carbo, var. macrorhynchus Bonaparte, Consp. Gen. Av., Vol. II., p. 169, 1856. This name does not appear in Ogilvie-Gr ant’s synonymy. Bonaparte’s diagnosis reads : “ Major ; rostro robustissimo,” while I note Ridgway’s description of the coloration is “ glossy blue-black.” This does not apply to British and Faroe Island specimens. Phalacrocorax carbo indicus, subsp. n. ; India. Although there are synonyms given in the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XX VT., p. 343, as follows, none is available — Graculus albiventris Tickell, J. As. Soc. Beng., Vol. XI., p. 463, 1842. Garbo leucocephala Hodgs., in Gray'^s Zool. Misc., p. 86, 1844. Garbo raptensis, id., ib. The first-mentioned was published by Blyth at the place quoted as Carbo albiventer Tickell, from Chyebassa, India. This name is pre-occupied by Lesson, Traite WOrn., p. 604, 1831. The other two names are nomina nuda. Blyth apparently also described this bird as P. leucotis, but that name was also used previously by Lesson at the same place. This form is characterised by its small size and purplish-green coloration, as noted previously. Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis Shaw and Nodder ; China and Japan. As synonyms should be noted Carbo capillatus and Carbo filamentosus Temminck and Schlegel, Fauna Japonica Axes, pis. 83 and 83 b and p. 129, 1850. This form is differentiated by its small size and generally oily-green coloration. It would appear to carry the immature plumage a long time 171 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. and to show a mottled neck-patch when changing into fully adult plumage, when the under-surface also shows a purplish tinge for a very short time. The “ filamentous ” stage is also probably due to this state, and would agree with what Ogilvie-Grant has described as “ Immature in the plumage of the third year ” for P. carbo (p. 346). Phalacrocorax carbo novcehollandice Stephens ; Australia. This form is characterised by its deep oily-green coloration associated with sparse nuptial ornaments, which are rarely observed, due to their evanescent nature. Phalacrocorax carbo steadi Mathews and Iredale ; New Zealand. This form agrees with the preceding in general features, but is smaller. This classification can only be considered of a temporary nature, but it is certain that future investigation will foUow on the lines here indicated. The ranges are not at all defined, due to scant material and the seasonal plumage changes which this bird undergoes. Thus specimens from many localities are not adult or in summer plumage and cannot be accurately compared. 172 I Genus— M ESOCARBO. Mesocaebo Mathews and Iredale, Ibis 1913, p. 415 . . Type M. ater. Small Phalacrocoraeine birds with comparatively short, slender bills, rather short necks, long wings, and medium tail composed of twelve feathers. The bill is more delicately formed than in the preceding genus, but on exactly the same pattern. The tail is about three times the length of the culmen or metatarsus, which are subequal, and more than half the wing length. When Iredale and I separated this form (loc. cit.) we wrote : “ The species of Mesocarho differ from those of Hypoleucus in their shorter and more slender bills, their longer tails and more slender build: from those of Microcarho in their longer and proportionately more slender bills as well as their proportionately shorter tails.” All these genera agree in having twelve taU-feathers, whereas Phalacro- corax has fourteen. The taxonomic value of this difference is uncertain, as the only recent systematist to study the group as a whole placed no value upon any of the characters used by himself in determining genera in other groups, and his species, subspecies, and genera have little interest to any worker save himself. This is unfortunate, as each worker cannot undertake a monographic review of a family such as this one to exactly determine the few forms he has personally to deal with. 173 Order PELECAN1F0RME8 No. 275. Family PHALACROCOBACID^. MESOCARBO ATER ATER. LITTLE BLACK CORMORANT. (Plate 220.)* Carbo atbe Lesson, Traite d’Om., p. 604, 1831 ; Sharks Bay, West Australia. Garbo ater Lesson, Traite d’Orn., p. 604, 1831 ; Pucheran, Rev. Mag. Zool. 1850, p. 627. Carbo sulcirostris Brandt, Bull. Acad. Sci. St. Petersb., Vol. III., p. 56. 1837 ; New South Wales. PhaUbcrocorax sulcirostris Gray, List Birds Brit. Mus., pt. m., p. 185, 1844 ; Gould, Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 67, 1848 ; MiiUer, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.), 1869, p. 280 ; Diggles, Birds Austr., Vol. II., pi. 120, 1877 ; Ogilvie-Grant, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVI., p. 376, 1898 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., p. 101, 1899 ; Campbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 972, 1901 ; HaU, Emu, Vol. II., p. 68, 1902 ; Le Souef, ih., p. 158, 1903 ; HiU, ib., p. 167, 1903 ; Carter, ib., Vol. III., p. 211, 1904 ; Le Souef, ib., Vol. IV., p. 138, 1905 ; Hartert, Nov. Zool., Vol. XII., p. 206, 1905 ; HaU, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 101, 1906 ; Berney, Emu, Vol. VI., p. 155, 1907 ; Ingram, Ibis 1907, p. 396 ; Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 37, 1908 ; Mellor, Emu, Vol. VII., p. 186, 1908 ; Mattingley, ib., Vol. VIII., pp. 20, 21, 1908 ; Cole, ib., pp. 76, 77, 1908 ; Whitlock, ib., p. 194, 1909 ; Hill, ib., p. 223, 1909 ; Mathews, ib., Vol. IX., p. 239, 1910 ; Ogilvie-Grant, Ibis 1910, p. 173 ; HuU, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., 1909, Vol. XXXIV., p. 668, 1910 ; Littler, Handb. Birds Tasm., p. 198, 1910 ; Mathews, Emu, Vol. X., p. 107, 1910 ; Crossman, ib., p. Ill, 1910; Hill, ib., p. 265, 1911 ; Barnard, ib., Vol. XI., p. 20, 1911; Stone, ib., Vol. XII., p. 120, 1912 ; Hill, ib., p. 254, 1913 ; Orton and Sandland, ib., Vol. XIII., p. 76, 1913 ; North, Austr. Mus. Spec. Cat., no. 1, Vol. III., p. 326, 1912 ; White, Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 124, 1914 ; Macgilhvray, ib., p. 147, 1914. Graculus sulcirostris Gray, Genera Birds, Vol. III., p. 667, 1845 ; Reichenbach, Synops. Av. Nat., pi. 64, f. 2547-8, 1850 ; Gray, Handl. Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. m., p. 129, 1871 ; Pelzeln, Ibis 1873, p. 124 ; North, Rec. Austr. Mus., Vol. II., p. 38, 1892. Microcarbo stictocephalus Bonaparte, Consp. Gen. Av., Vol. II., p. 178, 1856 ; New South Wales. Haliceus stictocephalus Bonaparte, ib. Qraculus stictocephalus Gray, Ibis 1862, p. 252 ; id., Handl. Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. iii., p. 129, 1871 ; Ramsay, Proc, Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. II., p. 203, 1877 ; id.. Tab. List Austr., Birds, p. 25, 1888 ; North, Austr. Mus. Cat., no. 12, p. 367, 1890. * The Plate is lettered Garho sulcirostris. 174 b?"’'- ’•>fs:‘e ■ I V V ws > " w-x^-’ i'fHBj >\-»t>ji‘T*w»«^^'r.4Vi!,,y.;.'.'‘n^H '•«, -. -V .'■•■^ :-r^:.i-:%^%5^;.' ,' •rTr-"'. H. GronvolcL, del. Witherby &, C'^ z_ 5 CARBO SULCIROSTRIS . (LITTLE BLACK CORMGRANTJ. It ’'^ ■" M •i- ■Ky ■ ■ 'S' ’■• ■' ■' ' •' ■■'' '• fe'; '■'^l •''«, '’mSaEm^i' ■ -r v‘ JJi’f','' '-■ M. = . ■'' ' ■ - '., i‘»i ' ' • V'’ r. ' *'■ ■-■■ '*/^.'.i • y-s V « S ’ \ ^ •.f ”: ' <' ', ., VV! 1 iW« imam i >^-( ■ U 'V* » i -J .y.y.i .’• i. ■•.,■»■-, j>>- i*V ' • ^1 • HI 1 .' a ?r:-^ ' '■■■■. ' .■ ■• -•• r.;,'! p ■' '. , . • t. I T* j^. *. . I- T '-fc », LC-V' ■"■-'• -■ (. . -v' . .• : ,;v .■ ^ . . .: ■ \- i,: ^ ^s^:‘yWx:-'i '■^. f"l'' ':•, ■■ \^Ji. :-'iiii.' jffl* V • s^i' F '? , “ *- -f' ' ' V'^ ;r' .' , ‘' 4 '--•■t-';i 1 ^^^.? ■; . ; ■■ affS! .- : 5 i. 5 * ■ - '.. ' '- ‘.‘I'^V '. Jl >3 .>- r- ■ 'V sTi^: mfy .-I .1 ..'wv „-S?. LITTLE BLACK CORMORANT. PTialacrocorax stictocephalus Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol, II., p. 495, 1865 ; Ramsay, Ibis 1866, p, 335 ; id., Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1877, p. 348 ; A. G. Campbell, Emu, Vol. II., p. 18, 1902 ; Batey, ih., Vol. VII., p. 17, 1907. Carho squamatus Pelzeln, Ibis 1873, p. 124 : nomen nudum. Microcarbo sulcirostris Salvadori, Ucc. Borneo, p. 365, 1874 ; id,, Ornith. Papua, e Moll,, Vol. III., p. 408, 1882. Carho sulcirostris sulcirostris Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 240, 1912. Carho ater sulcirostris Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 87, 1912. Carho ater ater Mathews, ih. Mesocarho ater ater Mathews, List Birds Austr., p. 95, 1913. Disthibtjtion : Australia ; Tasmania. Adult male. Upper-back, sides of breast, scapulars and wings hoary grey, with black margins and black shaft-hnes to the feathers, all of which are very glossy ; lower back, rump, and upper tail-coverts uniform blue-black glossed with green ; bastard-wing, primary-coverts and quiUs uniform dark brown, the quiUs paler on the inner webs and hoary grey on the outer webs of some of the secondaries ; tail dark brown ; head and neck all round dark brown with an oily-green reflection, darker on the crown of the head and hind-neck, paler and inc linin g to brown on the throat and sides of the face ; sides of the face, ear-coverts, and sides of crown covered with white tipped plumes ; remainder and entire under-surface blue-black glossed with green. BiU : culmen black, remainder of bill and bare skin leaden grey ; iris green ; tarsi and feet black. Total length 610 mm. ; culmen 48, wing 253, tail 131, tarsus 52. Adult female. Very similar to the adult male but smaller and with a few white-plumed feathers scattered down the hind-neck. Culmen 42 mm., wing 238, tail 120, tarsus 44. The immature bird differs from the adult in being more or less brown on the head, sides of the face, fore-neck and chest, and the white-tipped plumes on the head much less numerous. Nest. Constructed of sticks, leaves, etc., and placed in a tree ; in rookeries. Eggs. Clutch, three to four ; ground-colour pale green covered with white hme. Axis 50 to 56 mm., diameter 33-37 (Victoria). Clutch, four ; axis 49 to 50 mm., diameter 31 (Port Darwin). Breeding-season. August to December (Campbell) ; May and June (Darwin, 1902), As with most other Cormorants, very little is known of the life-history of this bird. r Mr. Tom Carter writes me : “ In April, 1900, considerable numbers of this species were seen at a White Gum flat (which had been converted into a large swamp after a hurricane) about 25 miles inland from Point Cloates. They did not breed there and were not observed in that locality on any other occasion. When at Carnarvon in September in the years 1911 and 1913, large flocks were seen both in the mangrove creeks and at fresh-water pools in the bed of the Gascoyne River. The district was suffering from a long-continued drought. In each year I picked up several dead birds laid on 175 / THE BIRDS OP AUSTRALIA. tiiG margins of the pools, and two that I shot and skinned in 1913 appeared to have inflammation of the super-renals, and were in very poor condition.” Mr. J. W. Meflor’s notes read: “ A well-known little Cormorant, especially on the rivers and inland waters, flying up the streams in small flocks and often congregating in large numbers. It breeds in trees, etc., and eggs in my collection were taken on the Murray River near the Victorian and South Australian border ; they have 3 and 4 to a clutch, and lay in rookeries, the nests being set fairly close to one another and composed of sticks, leaves, etc. These little shags were fairly common (on the Coorong) and generally seen in small flocks, sailing and diving in the water, while at times they would sit on the snags and old trees about the water. On one island I noted some of their old nests in the low trees and bushes, but the ‘ head hunters ’ had apparently driven them away, and none were breeding now.” In the Austral Avian Record, Vol. I., p. 87, 1912, I pointed out that the correct name for this species was Garbo ater. Lesson, in the Traite d'Orn., p. 604, 1831, described a bird as Garbo ater writing : “ Noir en entier ; taiUe d’un canard. De la bale des Chiens marins, a la Nouvelle HoUande.” When Pucheran reviewed the Lessonian types in the Paris Museum he gave a detailed description {Rev. Mag. de Zool., 1850, p. 627) and stated that it appeared to be the bird just previously described by Gray as G. chalconotus, which he only knew from figure and description. He mentioned that the locality disagreed, but suggested that as other species of Phalacrocorax were common to the two countries this might also be the case. In the Gatalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVI., 1898, Ogilvie-Grant placed the name at the head of the synonymy of P. chalconotus Gray, with a query stating that the inadequate description did not deserve recognition. Inasmuch as P. chalconotus is confined to New Zealand and is very rare there, being probably an evolutionary aberration of P. stewarti Grant, some explanation seemed necessary. The type of Garbo ater was collected by Peron and Lesueur at Shark’s Bay, West Australia. There has been confusion with regard to the type localities of some of Peron and Lesueur’ s birds, but this is confined to West Australia, South Australia, and Timor. These voyageurs did not touch at New Zealand, so that their bird could not be referred to P. chalconotus Gray. Looking for a substitute it was quickly seen that the description given by Pucheran differed in no material manner from the present species which lives at Shark’s Bay, West Australia. The bird figured and described is a male, collected at Hermit Hill, Northern Territory, on the 7th of August, 1894, and is the type of Mesocarbo ater territori. 176 Genus— H YPOLEUCUS. Hypoleucus Eeichenbach, Nat. Syst. Vogel, p. vii, 1852 . . . . . . . . . . . . Type H. varius. Leucocarbo Bonaparte, Consp. Gen. Av., Vol. II., p. 176, 1856 . . . . . . . . . . Type H. hougainvillii. Medium to large Plialacrocoracine birds with long slender bills, long wings, short tails composed of twelve feathers. These birds approach species of Phalacrocorax closely, from which they differ in the number of the tail-feathers. The tail is less than half the wing-length and more than twice the length of the metatarsus, which is generally exceeded by the culmen-chord. This genus is Antarctic in distribution and is composed of birds of bright coloration, usually white underneath and often with facial ornaments of fleshy caruncles. The type of Hypoleucus is as stated above, H. varius (Gmelin), not as given in the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVI., p. 331, 1898, P. hypoleucus. This is mentioned, as when Iredale and I used this with other Phalacro- coracine genera in the Ibis 1913, pp. 411-416, an amusing letter from the pen of our friend Dr. H. 0. Forbes appeared in the Ibis 1914, pp. 167-168, commenting in this manner : “ Why is the type of Stictocarbo now re-designated punctatus, instead of gaimardi ? Surely if the type falls for any reason, the genus falls with it ? ” As it was obvious that the writer was unacquainted with modern systematic work personal remonstrance only was made and the erroneous statements made in the letter pointed out. Dr. Forbes’ excuse was that he accepted the types given in the Catalogue of' the Birds in the British Museum as correct and infallible, which^ of course, they are not. VOL. IV. 177 Key to the Species. A. Smaller : wing under 280 mm. ; culmen under 55 mm. ; feathering extending on to sides of lower mandible H. fuscescens, p. 179. B. Larger : wing over 280 mm. ; culmen over 65 mm. ; no feathering on sides of lower mandible . . . . . . . . . . . . H. varius perthi, p. 184. X f I • II I 11 I H.G ronvolci, del Witherby & C° I 3 CARBO G(3ULDI. ' miTE EJEAEZEE CORMOPANTj . J. Order PELECANIF0RME8 No. 276. Family PHALACROCORACIDJE. HYPOLEUCUS FUSCESCENS. WHITE-BREASTED CORMORANT. (Plate 221.)* Hydrocorax etjscescexs Vieillot, Nouv. Diet. d’Hist. Nat., Vol. VIII., p. 86, 1817 ; Tasmania. Hydrocorax fuscescens Vieillot, Nouv. Diet. d’Hist. Nat., Vol. VIII., p. 86, 1817 ; Pueheran, Rev. Zool. 1850, p. 625. Carho hypoleucos Brandt, Bull. Sei. I’Aead. Imp. Sei. St. Petersb., Vol. III., p, 55, 1837 ; South Australia. Phalacrocorax leucogaster (not VieiUot, 1817) Gould, Synops. Birds Austr., pt. iv., App., p. 7, 1838 : Tasmania ; id., Proe. Zool. Soe. (Bond.) 1837, p. 156, 1838 ; id.. Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 69, 1843 ; Gray, List Birds Brit. Mus., pt. iii., p. 187, 1844; Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 492, 1865 ; Muller, Proe. Zool. Soe. (Bond.) 1869, p. 280; Legge, Papers and Proe. Roy. Soe. Tasm. 1886, p. 244, 1887; id., ib., 1887, p. 96, 1888 ; Witmer Stone, Austral Av. Ree., Vol. I., p. 144, 1913. Graculus leucogaster Gray, Genera Birds, Vol. III., p. 667, 1845 ; Reiehenbaeh, Synops. Av. Nat., pi. 63, figs. 875-6, 1850; Sehlegel, Mus. Pays-Bas, Vol. VI., Pelec., p. 20, 1863 ; Gray, Hand!. Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. iii., p. 128, 1871 ; Ramsay, Proe. Linn. Soe. N.S.W., Vol. II., p. 203, 1877 ; Tab. List Austr. Birds, p. 25, 1888; North, Austr, Mus. Cat., no. 12, p. 366, 1890 ; Be Souef, Ibis 1895, p. 421. Hypoleucus leucogaster Bonaparte, Consp. Gen. Av., Vol. II., p. 173, 1856. Hypoleucus gouldi Salvador!, Ann. Mus. Civ. Gen., Vol. XVIII., p. 404, 1882 : Tasmania ; id., Orn, Papua, e Mol., Vol. III., p. 413, 1882. Phalacrocorax gouldi Ogilvie-Grant, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVI., p. 396,' fig. 8, 1898 ; HaU, Key Birds Austr., p. 101, 1899 ; Campbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 973, 1901 ; Hill, Emu, Vol. II., p. 167, 1903 ; Campbell, ih., p. 209, 1903 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 101, 1906 ; Mathews, Hand!. Birds Austral., p. 37, 1908; Mattingley, Viet. Nat., Vol. XXV., p. 13, 1908; id,. Emu, Vol. VTII., p. 22, 1908 ; Cole, ih., p. 78, 1908 ; White, ih., p. 203, 1909 ; Littler, ih., Vol. IX., p. 142, 1910 ; id., Handb. Birds Tasm., p. 199, 1910 ; Ingle, Emu, Vol.X.,p. 127, 1910; Broadbent, ih., p. 245, 1910; White, ih., Vol. XI., p. 35, 1911 ; Stone, ih., Vol. XII., p. 120, 1912 ; North, Austr. Mus. Spec. Cat., no. 1, Vol. III., p. 327, 1912 ; White, Emu, Vol. XII., p. 161, 1913. Carho gouldi Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 240, 1912. * The Plate is lettered Carho gouldi. 179 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. Garbo gouldi tunneyi Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 88, 1912 ; South-west Australia. Garbo fuscescens Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. II., p, 6, 1913, Garbo fuscescens fuscescens Mathews, ib., p. 7. Garbo fuscescens tunneyi Mathews, ib., p. 7. Hypoleucus fuscescens Mathews, List Birds Austr., p. 96, 1913, Distribution : New South Wales ; Victoria ; Tasmania ; South Australia ; South-west Australia. Adult male. Head, hind-neck, entire back, outer sides of the thighs and under wing- coverts glossy blue-black with white plumes intermixed on the sides of the nape, upper hind-neck, and sides of the rump ; scapulars and wings oil-green with very narrow black margins to the feathers ; quills uniform dark brown ; tail greenish- black ; sides of the face, throat, fore-neck and entire under-surface of the body pure white. Bill dark horn, base and bare space purple ; iris green ; feet black. Total length 700 mm. ; culmen 54, wing 273, tail 107, tarsus 60. Adult fenude. Similar to the adult male but slightly smaller. Culmen 50 mm., wing 270, tail 107, tarsus 54. Immature. Distinguished chiefly by the brown on the upper-surface, sides of the body, and the outer thighs. Young. Similar to the above but darker brown, and the head and bind-neck narrowly streaked with white. Nest. Placed on a reef or on rocks and composed of seaweed, saltbush, etc. ; outside dimensions 18 by 4 inches, egg cavity about 9 inches by 2. Eggs. Clutch, two or three, similar to those of other members of the family. Axis 57 to 60 mm., diameter 36 to 38. Breeding-season. November, December and January. The credit of the discovery of this fine Cormorant has generally been given to Gould, but as I will hereafter more fully explain, it had been described twenty years previously by Vieillot, having been brought back to France from Tasmania by Peron and Lesueur. Very little is, however, yet known of its life-history, as the succeeding meagre notes show. Mr. J. W. Mellor’s notes read : “ This is a thoroughly coastal bird, being very plentiful on aU the islands in the Gulfs about the South Australian Coast, and also along the Victorian Coast and Tasmania, and very thick in Bass Straits. In St. Vincent’s Gulf and Spencer’s Gulf, South Australia, I have seen them in large flocks, also on the rocky reefs and sand spits on Kangaroo Island, South Australia, where in the early days they bred in large rookeries. In an expedition to Spencer’s Gulf, South Australia, in the Departmental Steamer ‘ Governor Musgrave,’ in connection with the Adelaide Congress of the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science, in January, 1907, I had the honour of being the Ornithologist, and landed on Dangerous Reef on Jan. 16th, where we found this bird in large . 180 WHITE-BREASTED CORMORANT. numbers, carrying on its breeding pursuits, and a note in my diary says : ‘ The nests were placed on the rocks of this barren reef and composed of sea- weed and bits of saltbush and saltweed : two, three, and four eggs were found in a clutch, the two former being common and the latter number rare : there were nests not yet laid in, up to large young ones with feathers just coming. . . . The Silver Gulls were also there, but they were not breeding, and they came down on the Cormorants’ nests, and ate the eggs at every chance.’ On returning to the Reef next day to obtain photographs of the birds we found that these robbers (the silver gulls) but completely demolished the whole rookery of cormorants, the eggs being eaten up, and the young both large and small laying about dead and mangled by the gulls, but strange to say a rookery of Crested Terns [Sterna hergii) had not been molested by the robbers, although hundreds of eggs lay about on the ground in these birds’ ‘ nests,’ and the birds had vacated the eggs at our approach : whether this was on account of the coloration of the eggs assimilating the surrounding ground, or whether it was because it was eggs of their own kind it is hard to say. “ On the expedition to Bass’s Straits on the SS. ‘ Manawatia ’ in con- nection with the Eighth Congress of the Royal Australasian Ornithologists’ Union, we visited Storehouse Island near Babel Island, on Dec. 4, and found several rookeries of these birds, the nests containing fresh eggs up to large birds just ready to fly, showing how varied the nesting times of these birds are. In this instance the normal clutch was three eggs. . . . (On the Coorong) these were the most plentiful of the ‘ shag ’ family noted, and were generally perched on some stake or snag in the water or swimming about and diving : they are expert swimmers and divers.” Littler* writes : “ The first birds to come under our notice (on Ninth Island, Bass Strait) were White-breasted Cormorants [PJialacrocorax gouldi). On a rocky isthmus running out from the south-east corner of the island was a large rookery with incubating operations in full swing. There were beWeen 100 and 150 nests, the majority containing eggs. The rookery was divided into two parts, the portion on the landward side containing eggs absolutely fresh ; some of the nests furthest inland were only just ready for their reception : the nests towards the extremity of the isthmus contained eggs somewhat incubated. They were bulky structures of variously coloured seaweed ; the egg cavity occasionally contained fragments of tussock-grass, but usually no lining other than fragments of sea debris was used. They were placed about two feet apart, on top of the rocks, which were heavily lime- washed. After taking some photographs of the sitting birds — for they * Emu, Vol. IX., p. 142, 1910. 181 THE BIEDS OF AUSTRALIA. allowed one to approach to within three yards on this our first visit and the nests, a few clutches of eggs were secured, then the birds left in peace. On again visiting the rookery a few days later, it was found that the Silver Gulls {Lams novmhollandice) had played havoc among the eggs. Later we watched through our field-glasses these Gulls quietly drop down among the nests and steal eggs from unprotected ones, right under the noses of birds sitting hard by. From observations it was found that the Cormorants were afraid of the Silver Gulls, and would not return to protect their nests while any of the impudent robbers were close by. On other parts of the island the remains of extensive rookeries were evident. It was noted that when this Cormorant is in full flight its wing-action much resembles that of the Black Duck {Anas superciliosa). For the first few days Silver Gulls were scarce, but after that they greatly increased, and a large flock was always to be seen in the vicinity of the Cormorant rookery.” In 1837 Gould described this Shag as P. leucogaster, and under this name it was generally known until the appearance of the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVI., in 1898. There Ogilvie-Grant used for it the name P. gouldi^ which had been proposed sixteen years earlier by Salvadori, as Gould’s name was invalid through its former usage by Vieillot in 1817. This name was then at once accepted on account of the authori- tative nature of the work in which it was published. Had Ogilvie-Grant thoroughly gone into the subject he would have found that an earlier name was applicable, and being at that time a consistent user of bedrock priority, he would have introduced the name here utilised and it would have been just as readily accepted as the one he wrongly selected. For, in the synonymy of P. varius Gmelin, a New Zealand bird, Ogilvie-Grant placed Hydrocorax fuscescens Vieillot, 1817. The description was of an immature bird, and the study of it alone made it doubtful to which species or subspecies it should be allotted. The locality, however, was Australia, so that if that were correct it could not be cited as a synonym of a Neozelanic bird. When Iredale and I worked up the synonymy of the New Zealand Avifauna this was of necessity inquired into, and as it had to be crossed off the synonymy of the Neozelanic species it had to be transferred to that of an Australian bird. The name was then applicable to either P. gouldi or P. hypoleucus, but it had long priority over both. Examination of the type then became necessary, as it was urgent that such a matter should be definitely and accurately settled. I found that Pucheran had examined the type in the Paris Museum and in the Revue Zool. 1850, p. 625, had concluded that it was the juvenile stage of P. varius Gmelin. The further information he gave was that it had been collected by Per on and Lesueur and was labelled “ Timor.” It is 182 WHITE-BREASTED CORMORANT. notorious that the localities West Australia, Tasmania, and Timor were wrongly interchanged in numerous cases in connection with Peron and Lesueur’s collection, and it is also well known that these investigators never visited New Zealand. I therefore wrote to Paris, but the authorities were unwilling to risk the forwarding as the specimen was old and valuable. I then had coloured drawings of the heads of the two Australian species made, showing the differences in the bare parts, which do not alter from immature to adult. I forwarded these to M. Menegaux with a request that he would carefully compare these and decide to which the specimen was referable. M. Menegaux, to whom my thanks are tendered, made the examination and also sent me a drawing of the head of the type of Vieillot’s species. These fixed the name on to the present species, not on to P. Tiypoleucm, as I had anticipated on account of Pucheran’s reference to P. varius Gmelin. The reason is that Pucheran was quite unaware of the differences between the species which he probably had not in the collection under his care. HeUmayr does not mention anything about the name in his Avifauna of Timor, nor does he include either P. gouldi or P. Jiy'poleucus in the list. The species is rare or unknown at Shark’s Bay, West Australia, where Peron and Lesueur collected, while it is abundant at their other coUecting- ground, Bass Straits. I therefore designated as type locality of Vieillot’s bird, Tasmania. The bird figured and described is a female collected on Peake Islands, south of West Australia, on the 14th of May, 1906. \\ 183 4 Order PELECANIFORMES Family PHALACROCORACIDM. No. 277. HYPOLEUCUS VARIUS PERTHI. PIED COKMORANT. (Plate 222.)* Garbo varius perthi Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 88, 1912 ; Perth, West Austraha. Phalacrocorax hypoleitcus (not Brandt 1837) Gould, Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 68, 1843 ; Ogilvie-Grant, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVI., p, 397, 1898 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., p. 101, 1899 ; Campbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 975, 1901 ; Carter, Emu, Vol. I., p. 127, 1902 ; Shepherd, ib., Vol. II., p. 32, 1902 ; Hill, ib., p. 167, 1903 ; Carter, ib., Vol. III., p. 210, 1904 ; Hill, ib., p. 229, 1904 ; Lawson, ib., Vol. IV., p. 132, 1905 ; MeUor, ib., pp. 159, 161, 1905 ; NichoUs, ib., Vol. V., p. 82, 1905 ; A. G. Campbell, ib., p. 145, 1906 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 101, 1906 ; Ingram, Ibis 1907, p. 396 ; Mathews, Hand!. Birds Austral., p. 37, 1908 ; Mellor, Emu, Vol. VII., p. 186, 1908 ; Mattingley, ib., Vol. VIII., p. 22, 1908 ; Gibson, ib., p. 64, 1908 ; Gibson, ib., Vol. IX., p. 77, 1909 ; HaU, Emu, Vol. IX., p. 132, 1909 ; Ogilvie-Grant, Ibis 1910, p. 172 ; Campbell and White, Emu, Vol. X., p. 203, 1910 ; HiU, ib., p. 265, 1911 ; Stone, ib., Vol. XII., p. 120, 1912 ; North, Austr. Mus. Spec. Cat., no. 1, Vol. III. , p. 330, 1912 ; White, Emu, Vol. XII., p. 182, 1913 ; Hill, ib., p. 254, 1913 ; Barnard, ib., Vol. XIII., p. 209, 1914. Hypoleucus varius Bonaparte, Consp. Gen. Av., Vol. II., p. 173, 1856 (part). Phalacrocorax varius (not Gmelin) Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 490, 1865 ; Walker, Ibis 1892, p. 258. Oraculus varius (not Gmelin) Gray, Handl. Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. iii., p. 128, 1871 (part) ; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. II., p. 203, 1878 ; id.. Tab. List Austr. Birds, p. 24, 1888 ; North, Austr. Mus. Cat., no. 12, p. 365, 1890. Garbo varius hypoleucos Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 241, 1912. Garbo varius perthi Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 88, 1912 ; Perth, West Australia. Hypoleucus varius hypoleucus Mathews, List Birds Austr., p. 96, 1913. Distribution. Northern Territory ; Queensland ; New South Wales ; Victoria, Tasmania; South Austraha ; South-west Austraha. Adult male. Sides of the upper-back, scapulars, upper- and under-surface of the wings dark oil-green with very narrow edgings to the feathers ; head, hind-neck, a narrow line on the middle of the upper-back and entire lower-back, rump, and upper tail- * The Plate is lettered Carho hypolemos. 184 CAR BO 4 HYPOLEUCOS . (PIED CORMOPANT J. / 'K »• , ' ^*9^ , , ■ ,!.. ; * f :• 35“^ T’l , , I, ■?'*•'|••■•^ . '^5'^ l/r'-iT- :y». ■■ >,V:»' E|^V‘^, ,, fr ,'-. 'li. M •>■ y:=f !''•. ! > .'*•*■ •' ■ ' - 1 >.y'‘ \ . ^'' l‘ '(l;', J* I ( .^ . ■ "l > w» /, . ‘ ‘iT# L : T,. ' jR- • r V • " 'V s» I. •• ', \ >, J., ' '-J.. ,, if’' . • \v*« -'‘ a' .. f ' u. i» .’- ,vT^ M 7 Vi 1^1 A riS'^tlPia^^'s? PIED COKMORANT. eoverts blue-black like the flanks and outer aspect of the thighs ; quills and tail- feathers uniform black ; sides of the face, sides of neck, throat, fore-neck, and entire surface pure white. Bill dark horn ; bare space in front of the eye bright orange, eyehd and rim round the eye rich indigo-blue ; throat and cheeks light bluish-ash ; iris pale green ; feet black. Total length 800 mm. ; culmen 70, wing 324, tail 150, tarsus 66. Adult female. Similar to the adult male. Immature. This individual, which has nearly attained its fuU plumage, is conspicuous by having some brown feathers scattered among the white on the fore-neck and sides of the neck. Nest. Similar to that of H. v. gouldi, sometimes placed on the ground, at others in trees. Eggs. Clutch two, similar to those of other members of the family. Diameter 55 to 58 ; axis 35 to 37. Breeding-season. “ September to November ; March to May ” (Campbell). “ July ” (Carter). Again I have to record that practically nothing is known of the life- habits of still another bird. Mr. Tom Carter has written me : “ This fine species was abundant about Carnarvon, West Australia, and round the North-west Cape. They bred in great numbers on Fraser Island, about four miles out to sea from my house at Point Cloates. The nests were built in and on a species of flannel- leaved soft bush (Aboriginal, Toondurra-ra) that only grows in the close proximity of the sea or salt water. Many of the nests were touching each other, and they were mostly made from the ends of the branches of this bush with the leaves attached, having evidently been bitten and broken off by the Cormorants. Seaweed was also used to some extent for nesting material. I used to collect the eggs from this island to eat, as a change from bush diet, and found them excellent, without any fishy flavour. When cooked, they reminded me of the Plover eggs {Vanellus cristatus) which are in such request in England. One year I brought an almost full-grown young bird to my house, and it remained there for several months although it had its full liberty, and open access to the sea, about 500 yards distant. It used to walk to the beach and go out fishing for several hours daily, returning to the neighbourhood of the kitchen (where it obtained scraps of meat and fish from the cook) for the heat of the day and at sundown.” Mr. E. J. Christian has written me from Victoria : “ They can be seen here when there is plenty of water about, especially in one particular open swamp where there are some dead trees. Often on the swamp one sees as many as 50 of these birds doing nothing but perching on the limbs of these trees. I think that they feed on Yabbies, as there are no fish in this creek. On the big dam one can often be seen sitting by the edge of the water for hours and then suddenly he will make a dart with his long neck and catch VOL. IV. 185 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. something in the water. Before alighting on a sheet of water I notice that they always fly round a lot, sometimes 5 or 10 minutes. They build in great gum trees in the swamps and billabongs of the Murray. I do not think this bird eats many fish. I watched two birds on a tank : one caught three small fish of about two and a half inches, the other two of the same length. They sunned themselves the rest of the day. Others I have watched are also small eaters.” Mr. Sandland writes : “ Seen occasionally at Balah, South Australia, on the Murray River, and also about the Burra district, but always leave the Burra district during the nesting season.” Mr. J. W. Mellor notes: “This fine large white-breasted Cormorant is found fairly well distributed about the coastal districts and the islands of South Australia. I found it breeding on Pelican Island in the Coorong on October 1, 1894 ; here the nests were built up to the height of 18 inches with a hollow on top in which was tliree or four eggs, some nests were only in course of construction: they were composed of saltbush and sticks laid across and around until the pile was completed. I have seen the birds also on Kangaroo Island, South Australia, also in St. Vincent’s Gulf, and at the mouth of the Port Adelaide River. The yellowish-green skin about the base of the bill and eyes and light-coloured bill at once distinguishes this species from the preceding one, which presents a black bill and dark colouring in the skin about its base.” The present species agrees in detail with the Neozelanic P. varius Gmelin so well, that many workers have not differentiated the two. As a matter of fact the Australian bird does differ from the Neozelanic one in that the head, neck and back coloration has a steel-blue sheen while that of the latter shows oily dark green only. This difference can only be regarded as of subspecific value as I have here recognised it. The other Australian species of the genus is smaller, has the general coloration darker, the head and back much deeper and white feathers on the head and neck much pronounced. In addition, the feathering of the chin and sides of the face differs, as shown in the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVI., pp. 396-7, woodcuts in text, 1898, and this difference determined the acceptance of Vieillot’s name fuscescens for the preceding bird. This distinction also necessitates the rejection of Brandt’s name hypoleucus for the present species. This name was used by Gould in the Birds of Australia, but in his Handbook, p. 490, he considered the Neozelanic and Australian birds inseparable, and therefore used the earlier name varius given to the former. On p. 492, he, however, quoted Carho hypoleucus Brandt, with no reference, as a synonym of his own Phalacrocorax leucogaster. 186 PIED CORMOEANT. Had. lie given the reference he might have seen that Erandt’s name had priority. Gould’s names were accepted for over thirty years when Ogilvie- Grant, in the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVI., concluded that the Neozelanic and Australian birds classed under P. varius were distinct, and for the latter introduced Carho hypoleucos of Brandt. He showed how similar the two Australian species were and gave figures of the chin and face feathering. Since then Ogilvie-Grant’s determination has been accepted without question, but upon investigating the matter closely I find Brandt gave the following description : “ Caput et collum supra, nec non dorsum, uropygium hypochondria et femora atra ex viridi sericea. Tectrices alarum grisese ex atro virescente anguste marginatse. Cauda quadrata, breviuscula cum tectricibus atra. Capitis latera, gula, colli anterior pars et latera, pectus, abdomen et crissum Candida. Angulus oris, nec non mandibulse basis nuda. Pedes atri. Longitude a rostri apice ad caudse apicem 2' 2" 9"'. Patria ? ” The characters “ Cauda . . . breviuscula . . . Angulus oris, nec non mandibulse basis nuda ” fix the name on to the bird called by Ogilvie-Grant P. gouldi, but which I now show to have two prior names, H, fuscescens Vieillot and C. hypoleucos Brandt. The only name available for the present bird is C. v. perthi, which I proposed for the Western form but which for the present work I do not recognise as distinct. The bird figured and described is a male collected on Lake Albert, South Australia, on the 1st of March, 1912, by Captain S. A. White, and is the type of Hypoleucus varius whitei. 187 Genus— M ICEOCARBO. Microcarbo Bonaparte, Comptes Rendus Sci. (Paris), Vol. XLIII., p. 577, 1856 . . . . Type M. pygmceus, Halieus Reichenbach, Nat. Syst. Vogel., p. vii., 1852 (not Halimus lUiger 1811) . . . . Tjrpe M. pygmceus. Also spelt — Haliaeus Bonaparte, Comptes Rendus Sci. (Paris), Vol. XLI.. p. 1115, 1855. Helieua Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 488, 1865. Halietor Heine, Journ. fiir Ornith., 1860, p. 202 . . Type M. pygmceus. Melanocarbo Bernstein in Musschenbroek, Dag- boek van Dr. H. A. Bernstein’s laatste Reis van Ternate, etc., p. 119, 1883 .. .. Type M. melanoleucus. Smallest Phalacrocoracine birds with very short bills, long necks, long wings, very long tails and short legs and feet. The bill is very short, being less than one-sixth the length of the wing and shorter than the metatarsus. The wing has the primary formula different from any of the preceding genera, having the second and third primaries subequal, the third sometimes the longest, while the first is exceeded by the fourth. The tail, composed of twelve feathers, is very long, about two-thirds the length of the wing, and four times the length of the culmen or metatarsus. The feet are delicately formed when contrasted with those of the preceding genera, though comparatively they agree in their proportions. 188 1 Witherby &. C° CARBO MELANOLEUCOS. (LITTLE CORMORANT). Order PELEGANIF0BME8 No. 278. Family PHALACROCORAGIDJS. MICROCARBO MELANOLEUCUS MELANOLEUCUS. LITTLE CORMORANT. (Plate 223.)* Hydrocorax melanoleijcos Vieillot, Nouv. Diet. d’Hist. Nat., Vol. VIII., p. 88, 1817 ; New South Wales. Hydrocorax melanoleucos Vieillot, Nouv. Diet. d’Hist. Nat., Vol. VIII., p. 88, 1817. PTialacrocorax melanoleucus Stephens, in Shaw’s Gen. Zool., Vol. XIII., pt. i., p. 93, 1826 ; Gould, Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 70, 1843 ; Gray, List Birds Brit. Mus., pt. in., p. 187, 1844 ; Stokes, Diseov. in Centr. Austr., Vol. I., p. 483 ; MacgiUivray, Narr. Voy. “Rattlesnake,” Vol. II., p. 359, 1852; Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 493, 1865; Legge, Papers and Proe. Roy. Soe. Tasm. 1874, p. 35; Ramsay, Proe. Zool. Soe. (Lond.) 1877, p. 348 ; id., Proe. Linn. Soe. N.S.W., Vol. III., p. 302, 1878; id., ih., Vol. IV., p. 102, 1879; Legge, Papers Proe. Roy. Soe. Tasm. 1886, p. 244, 1887 ; Ogilvie-Grant, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVI., p. 398, 1898 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., p. 101, 1899 ; A. G. Campbell, Emu, Vol. II., p. 18, 1902 ; Campbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 977, 1901 ; Milligan, Emu, Vol. II., p. 76, 1902 ; Le Souef, ib., p. 158, 1903 ; Hill, ib., Vol. III., p. 229, 1904 ; Le Souef, ib., Vol. IV., p. 138, 1905 ; M'Clymont, ib., p. 177, 1905 ; Hartert, Nov. Zool., Vol. XII., p. 206, 1905 ; D’Ombrain, Emu, Vol. V., p. 188, 1906 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 101, 1906 ; Berney, Emu, Vol. VT., p. 155, 1907 ; Batey, ib., Vol. VII., p. 17, 1907 ; HiU, ib., p. 23, 1907 ; Mattingley, ib., p. 71, 1907 ; Austin, ib., p. 78, 1907 ; Mathews, Hand!. Birds Austral., p. 37, 1908 ; Ingram, Ibis 1908, p. 464 ; MeUor, Emu, Vol. VII., p. 186, 1908 ; Mattingley, Viet. Nat., Vol. XXV., p. 66, 1908 ; id.. Emu, Vol. VIII., pp. 20, 21, 1908 ; Cole, ib., pp. 76, 77, 1908 ; HiU, ib., p. 223, 1909 ; Mathews, ib., Vol. IX., p. 239, 1910 ; Ogilvie-Grant, Ibis 1910, p. 172 ; HuU, Proe. Linn. Soe. N.S.W., 1909, Vol. XXXIV., p. 669, 1910 ; Littler, Handb. Birds Tasm., p. 200, 1910 ; Mathews, Emu, Vol. X., p. 107, 1910 ; Broadbent, ib., p. 245, 1910 ; Barnard, ib., Vol. XI., p. 20, 1911 ; White, ib., p. 35, 1911 ; Stone, ib., Vol. XIL, p. 120, 1912 ; North, Austr. Mus. Spee. Cat., no. 1, Vol. III., p. 333, 1912 ; Chandler, Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 35, 1913 ; Orton & Sandland, ib., p. 76, 1913 ; White, ib., p. 124, 1914 ; Maegillivray, ib., p. 147, 1914 ; Barnard, ib., Vol. XIV., p. 41, 1914. * The Plate is lettered Garbo melanolemos. 189 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. Cario dimidiatus Lesson. Traite d’Om, p. 604, 1831 : New South Wales ; Pucheran, Eevue Mag. Zool. 1850, p. 537. PJialacrocorax flavirJiynchus Gould, Synops. Birds Austr., pt. iv., App., p. 8, 1838 : New South Wales ; id., Proc. Zool. Soc. (Loud.) 1837, p. 157, 1838 ; Stone, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 144, 1913. Graucalus flavirostris Gray, in Dieffenbach’s Travels in New Zeal., Vol. II., p. 201, 1843 (Emendation only of Gould’s specific name). Graculus melanoleucus Gray, Genera Birds, Vol. III., p. 667, 1845 ; Reichenbach, Synops. Av. Natat., pi. 63, figs. 872-3, 1850 ; Schlegel, Mus. Pays-Bas, Vol. VI., Pelec., p. 15, 1863; Gray, Handl. Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. m., p. 129, 1871; Pelzeln, Ibis 1873, p. 124 ; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. II., p. 203, 1878 ; id., Tab. List Austr. Birds, p. 25, 1888 ; North, Aust. Mus. Cat., no. 12, p. 366, 1890. Haliceus melanoleucus Bonaparte, Consp. Gen. Av., Vol. II., p. 177, 1856 (part). Haliceus leucomelas Gloger, Joum. fur Orn. 1857, p. 14 (Emendation only of Vieillot’s specific name). Carlo melanoleucus Hartlaub & Einsch, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1868, p. 4. Carlo melanoleucos melanoleucos Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 241, 1912. Carlo melanoleucus melvillensis Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 74, 1912 : Melville Island, Northern Territory. Microcarlo melanoleucus Mathews, List Birds Austr., p. 97, 1913. Distribution. Austraha ; Tasmania. Adult mole. General colour of the upper-surface glossy black ; wing-coverts hoary-grey with black marginal or submarginal edgings ; quills and tail-feathers uniform glossy black ; the feathers on the fore-head, narrow and stiffened, are black ; sides of the fore-head, sides of face, throat, fore-neck, and entire under-surface pure white except the axillaries, under wing-coverts, and under tail-coverts, which are black. BiU and gular pouch yellow, culmen black ; bare skin on face brownish-yellow ; iris greyish-white ; feet black ; second scale on middle toe plum-colour. Total length 610 mm. ; culmen 34, wing 238, tail 165, tarsus 38. Adult female. Similar in every respect to the adult male but smaller. Wing 232 mm. ; culmen 32, tail 155. ^Nestling. With tail and wing-feathers partially developed : is dense black with white feathers interspersed over the entire abdomen, more thickly on the thighs and vent ; the head is quite naked as far as the ear-coverts, which have white tufts. Bill black, basal portion and a patch near the tip of the lower mandible yellowish- white ; fore-head and crown of head dirty white ; throat purplish flesh-colour ; inter- ramal space pale greenish-white ; iris, outer ring dirty white, inner one brown ; feet black. The immature in this species, as in the majority of others, is chiefly distinguished by its brown upper-surface. Nest. Composed of sticks and lined with leaves, and placed in low trees. Eggs. Clutch, three to five, similar to those of other members of the family. Axis 43 to 46 mm. ; diameter 30 to 32. Breeding-season. September to J anuary (Queensland and New South Wales) ; May (Darwin, Northern Territory). 190 LITTLE CORMORANT. Although this bird is very common throughout Australia, I have no notes as to its life-history. Such lack of interest in such a peculiar phase of Cormorant life does not speak highly for the observations of the famed Australian ornithologists who, to quote official utterance, are “ conversant with the life-histories and habitats of Australian forms.” It is pitiable that the ‘‘ cabinet ornithologist, unacquainted with Australian field ornithology,” should be denied the pleasure of consulting records made by the “ working field ornithologists.” Again it is written that “ so far Australian ornithologists have been too much concerned purely in the study of ornithology (which is a living, virile one in Australian regions).” “Wake up, Australia!” should be the motto of all native ornithologists, as it is about time that you realise that “virile ornithology” is the collation and study of bird-life, whether the bird be a “ despised ” Cormorant or a delightful Superb Warbler. Examples of real study are now continually appearing in the pages of the Emu, and I want to impress upon the field-worker that it is only when the despised “ cabinet ornithologist” comes to collate the records that the blanks stand out so plainly. From the systematic point of view this bnd is worthy of much study, yet apparently from the field point of view it is negligible. The reverse might have been easily written, but no bird, as regards its life-history, is negligible, as each bird is “ virile ” and individually demands prolonged study. Mr. Tom Carter’s remarks read : “ This species is common in the South- west of Australia and may commonly be seen catching the cray-fish that occur in the inland swamps and watercourses.” Mr. J. W. Mellor’s only comments are : “ The little white-breasted cormorant is generally distributed about the inland waters as well as the sea-coast and islands of South Australia and the other states : they go in flocks and breed in rookeries like the other members of the family, the clutch being four. I have seen them plentiful in St. Vincent’s Gulf, Spencer’s felulf. Kangaroo Island, also on Lakes Alexandrina and Albert and the Coorong, all in South Australia. I also noted them on the Gippsland Lakes, Victoria, and Tuggerah Lakes, New South Wales, and many other similar localities.” In the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVI., Ogilvie- Grant recognised Phalacrocorax melanoleucus and P. brevirostris as two distinct species and therefore admitted the former as a visitor or rare New Zealand bird. Iredale and I {Ibis 1913, p. 415) rejected this determination, study of the specimens having convinced us that the two forms were only subspecifically distinct and that the few cases of the occurrence of supposed P. melanoleucus in New Zealand were cases of reversion. The recognition of the P. finschii Sharpe seemed to confirm this. 191 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. Puclieran {Rev. Mag. Zool. 1850, p. 537) has given the following explanation with regard to Carbo dimidiatus Lesson : “ C’est avec juste raison que cette espece, que M. Gould avait decrite, en 1837, sous le nom de PJialacrocorax flavirynchus a ete rapportee a F Hydrocomx melanoleucus de Vieillot. Le type des deux observateurs fran 9 ais est un individu apporte de la Nouvelle-Hollande par Peron et Lesueur.” The bird figured and described is a male collected on MelviQe Island, Northern Territory, on the 8th of January, 1912, by Mr. J. P. Rogers. ■5? 192 Genus— ANHING A. Anhinga Brisson, Ornith., Vol. VI., p. 476, 1760 . . Type A. anhinga. Plotus Linne, Syst. Nat., 12th ed., p. 218, 1766 . . . . Type A. anhinga, Plottus Scopoli, Introd. Hist. Nat., p. 474, 1777 . . . . Type A. anhinga. Large slender birds with very long necks, long thin pointed bills, long wings, long stiff tail, short legs and long toes, toti-pahnate. The biU is very long and thin, straight and pointed, longer than the head and more than one and a half times the length of the metatarsus, compressed laterally and the edges of both mandibles are finely serrated. The loreal space is naked and there is a small gular pouch ; the nostrils obsolete in an ill-defined groove. The neck is very long and the body slender. The wings are long, the second and third primaries sub-equal and longest, the first shorter than the fourth. The tail is very long, composed of twelve broad stiff feathers, fairly evenly rounded, the outside feather rather short. The legs are very stout and short ; the metatarsus is less than one-fourth the length of the tail, coarsely reticulate on the front and sides but minutely reticulate on the back. The toes are long, the middle almost as long as the outer one, hind toe connected with others by a web : all the toes therefore are fuUy webbed. The outer toe is little longer than the middle one, and is about one and a half times the length of the metatarsus ; the middle-claw is finely pectinate. An extraordinary feature is the wrinkling of the two centre tail-feathers and the longest secondaries. The Darters, though superficially unlike, have been shown \^o be specialised Cormorants, and show the closest relationship of any of the toti-palmate group. The family Anhingidm covers the genus Anhinga only, which consists of at least five species distributed in an extraordinary manner. The genus is better known by the name of Plotus, but the decision of the International Commission on Nomenclature having legahsed the Brissonian genera, the name Anhinga must be used. For Linne’ s genus Plotus was simply a re-naming of Brisson’s genus Anhinga, and the bird was unknown to Linne save from Brisson’s description. VOL. IV. 193 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. I have said five species, though the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum^ Vol. XXVI., only admitted four, but there are obvious contradictions on pp. 411-414 under Plotus rufus. This name is worthy of record as an instance of the “furor prioritatis ” that overwhelpied O^vie-Grant in the preparation of this Catalogue. The species Plotus levaillantii had borne this name with scarcely a disputant when Ogilvie-Grant brought into use Phtus rufus, a name previously absolutely unknown. Thus a name of seventy-five years’ standing was superseded by an absolutely “ new ” name. I agree with Ogilvie-Grant that he adopted the correct course, and by the acceptance of the undoubtedly right name in his work secured the recognition of it by workers universally. I have seen no refutation of his action, yet at the present time Ogilvie-Grant has endorsed a policy of “ N.C. ” — a direct incentive to slovenly w'ork — on the score of inconvenience. His own work in the Catalogue of Birds provides a full reply to his own arguments, and it is displeasing to see such a retrograde movement. 194 PLOTUS NOV^ HOLLANDI^ . (A US THALIA N IDA R TER ) . Order PELECANIF0RME8 No. 279. Family ANHINGIDM, ANHINGA NOV^HOLLANDIiE. DARTER. (Plate 224.)* Plotus NOV^HOLLAI^DL® Gould, Pioc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1847, p. 34 ; New South Wales. New Holland Darter, Latham, Gen. Hist. Birds, Vol. X., p. 435, 1824. Plotus novmhollandice Gould, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1847, p. 34; id., Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 75, 1847 ; Reichenbach, Synops. Natat., pi. 58, Nos. 2302-3, pi. 68, figs. 2648-49, 1850 ; Bonaparte, Consp. Gen. Av., Vol. II., p. 181, 1856 ; Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 496, 1865 ; Gray, Handl. Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. iii., p. 125, 1871 ; Pelzeln, Ibis 1873, p. 123 ; Buller, Trans. New Zeal. Inst., Vol. VII., p. 217, 1874 ; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. I., pp. 386, 395, 1877 ; id., ib., Vol. II., p. 203, 1878 ; id., ib., Vol. III., p. 302; 1878 ; id., ib., Vol. IV., p. 102, 1879 ; id., Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1877, p. 349 ; Higgles, Birds Austr., Vol. II., pi. 121, 1877 ; Buller, Man. Birds New Zeal., p. 97, 1882 ; Salvadori, Om. Papua, e Mol., Vol. III., p. 406, 1883 ; Tristram, Ibis 1886, p. 41 ; Buller, Birds New Zeal., 2nd ed., Vol. II., p. 175, 1888 ; Ramsay, Tab. List Austr. Birds, p. 24, 1888 ; North, Aust. Mus. Cat., no. 12, p. 363, 1890 ; id., Rec. Austr. Mus., Vol. I., p. 147, 1891 ; Ogilvie-Grant, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVI., p. 417, 1898 ; HaU, Key Birds Austr., p. 102, 1899 ; Campbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 979, 1901 ; Carter, Emu, Vol. I., p. 127, 1902 ; Le Souef, ib., Vol. II., p. 158, 1903 ; Hill, ib., p. 167 ; Carter, ib., Vol. III., p. 210, 1904 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 102, 1906; Buller, Suppl. Birds New Zeal., Vol. II., p. 46, 1906; Bemey, Emu, Vol. VI., p. 155, 1907 ; Batey, ib., Vol. VII., p. 17, 1907 ; Austin, ib., p. 78, 1907 ; Ingram, Ibis 1907, p. 396 ; Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 37, 1908 ; MeUor, Emu, Vol. VII., p. 186, 1908 ; Mattingley, ^6., Vol. VIII., p. 20, 1908 ; Cole, ib., p. 78, 1908 ; Mathews, ib., Vol. IX., p. 239, 1910 ; Ogilvie-Grant, Ibis 1910, p. 172 ; Carter, ib., p. 656 ; Broadbent, Emu, Vol. X., p. 245, 1910 ; Barnard, ib., Vol. XI., p. 20, 1911 ; Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 241, 1912 ; Stone, Emu, Vol. XII., p. 121, 1912 ; Hill, ib., p, 254, 1913 ; Witmer Stone, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 144, 1913 ; Agnew, Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 94, 1913 ; White, ib., p. 124, 1914 ; Macgillivray, ib., p. 148, 1914 ; Barnard, ib., Vol. XIV., p. 41, 1914. * The Plate is lettered Plotus novcehollandice. 195 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. Plotus melanogaster Schlegei, Mus. Pays-Bas, Pelec., Vol. VI., p, 26, 1863 (part). Anhinga novcehollandim Hartert, Katal. Vogels Mus. Senckenb., p. 236, 1891 ; Mathews, List Birds Austr., p. 97, 1913. Plotus nov(Bhollandi(B derhyi Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 74, 1912 : Derby, North-west Australia. Plotus novcBhollandim novcehollandim Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 74, 1912 ; Mathews and Iredale, Ibis 1913, p. 416. Distribution. Australia. Adult maU. General colour above and below glossy blue-black ; a broad white band on each side of the head enclosing the eye and extending on to the sides of the upper-neck ; naked part of throat edged with white ; a large patch of chestnut on the fore-neck ; the feathers on the lower hind-neck and upper-mantle more or less chestnut at the base ; scapulars and wing-coverts centred with white ; quills and tail-feathers uniform black, the two central tail-feathers being transversely waved ; innermost secondaries and tail-feathers ribbed. Bill olive-green, base of upper mandible brown, base of lower mandible and bare skin yellow ; iris pale yellow ; feet whitish-brown, toes darker. Total length 890 mm. ; culmen 79, wing 347, tail 217, tarsus 48. Adult female. Head and hind-neck dark brown, becoming paler on the latter and everywhere mixed with white, a white line from the cheeks extending down the sides of the neck ; middle of back rust-brown ; scapulars dark brown centred with white ; wing- coverts brown, or black, also centred with white, major-coverts black and white ; bastard- wing, primary-coverts and quills uniform slatey -black, the innermost secondaries white on the outer webs ; tail, centre feathers silvery -grey, the outer ones darker and more slate-grey ; chin, throat, and entire under-surface buffy-white, a black patch on each side of the breast ; outer edge of wing bufEy- white. Bill bluish-grey, yellowish-grey below ; iris pale yellow ; feet creamy -yellow. Culmen 67 mm., wing 357, tail 230, tarsus 44. Immature male {bird of the first year). Similar to the adult female, but difiPers in being darker on the back, the throat and fore-neck buff, the crown of head and hind-neck much darker brown, and the white streak on the cheeks distinctly outlined, as also the white edges to the feathers of the throat. Imrmture male {second year). This bird shows an advance of plumage by being darker on the head, hind-neck, and entire back ; the lower fore-neck is black, dark feathers are distributed over the under-surface, and the under tail-coverts are mixed with rufous. Immature male {third year). This individual is very nearly in the adult plumage, but stiU retains the brown of the immature on the top of the head and hind-neck ; the rufous on the fore-neck is more extensive and is intermixed with the black of the throat, and the white on the chin and sides of the head is well developed. Nestling. Covered with white down below and rusty-red on the neck and wing-coverts. The head and throat bare ; on the sides of the neck the white streak is just noticeable. Wings and tail black, tipped with buff. Nest. A platform composed of twigs and lined with leaves, about 16 in. across. Usually placed in low trees. Eggs. Clutch, three or four ; ground-colour greenish, covered with a coating of whitish lime. Axis 54-58 mm. ; diameter 33-36. Breeding-season. October to January, East Australia. February and March (Elsey), , North-west Australia. May and June, Northern Territory. 196 DAETER. Little is known of the life-history of this strange bird, and little interest seems to have been as yet taken in it by Australian ornithologists. Mr. J. W. MeUor has written me : “ This bird is not common in South Australia i)ut I have noted it on the River Murray, also on the waters of the River Clarence and Richmond River in New South Wales.” Mr. Tom Carter states : “ According to my experience this curious bird is rare in West Australia, having only twice come under my observation during a residence there of nearly thirty years. One was seen and shot by me at a pool on my inland run 60 miles S.E. of Point Cloates. Some of my natives called my attention to it as being a strange bird to them. The remains of a dead Darter were picked up on the banks of the PaUenup (or Salt) River which runs S.E. from Broome HilL The head was in good condition and proved the identity beyond any doubt.” Mr. J. P. Rogers has added : “ March 14, 1902. Jimbaloora Swamp near Derby, North-west Australia. Large colony found ; nests were built in some low Coolibah trees in the centre of the swamp. Depth of water about four feet. There were also many nests of a Cormorant (species not known for sure). The two species were friendly with each other, as the nests were buUt close together. Most of the nests contained young naked birds. The Plotus young were flesh-colour, and the Cormorants black. The number in a clutch is four, being the same in each species. ‘^Jan. 13, 1912. Ten miles South-east of Snake Bay, Melville Island. A bird of this species was seen to-day. Jan. 14, 1912. I heard one calling to-day but could not see it. These were the only two I have seen or heard on the Island.” Berney {Emu, Vol. VI., p. 155, 1907) notes : “ This species is seen occasionally (Richmond District, North Queensland), but is far from common on our larger and deeper water-holes. When chasing fish beneath the surface of the water it pierces its prey through the centre with the upper bill, and coming to the surface tosses it into the air, catches it and swallows it. I think the prey is taken by impaling every time.” Gould’s account has not yet been much improved though written over fifty years ago : ‘‘ Shy and seclusive in disposition, it usually takes up its abode in localities little frequented by man : seeks its prey in the water, dives with the greatest ease to the bottom of the deepest pools, and is as active in this element as can well be imagined. It ordinarily swims with a considerable portion of the body above the surface of the water, but upon being disturbed immediately sinks beneath it, leaving the head and neck only to be seen, and these, from their form and the motion communicated to them by the action of swimming, present a close resemblance to those of 197 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. a snake. Its food consists of fish, aquatic insects, newts, frogs, etc. After feeding it perches on a snag of some fallen tree in the water, or on the naked branch of a tree in the forest nigh to its haunts, often on one of the greatest height, where it sits motionless for hours together. While thus perched it is much more easily approached and shot than on the water, where it is wary in the extreme.” Elsey wrote to Gould an account which was first published in the Proc. Zool Soc. (Lend.) 1857, p. 28, and then incorporated in the Handbook and thence transferred to CampbelFs Nests and Eggs^ and I now here reprint it to emphasize the scarcity of observations during a period of over fifty years. Elsey’s letter concerned the locality round the Victoria River Depot, North- west Australia, and he stated : “ The Plotus is common here, and excellent eating. During February and March it was incubating. It chooses large trees that hang over the water above or through the mangroves, and in these a number of them build a colony of large coarse flattish nests of dead sticks and twigs, which appear, from the quantity of dirt about them and their stained appearance, to be used year after year. Each season they place in the centre a few fresh green leaves, and on these lay three or four white eggs, with a Very earthy opaque but brittle shell: the lining membrane is of a blue-grey colour ; they are rather smaller and more elongated than a hen’s egg. We have enjoyed many fine meals of these eggs, sometimes getting from forty to fifty in a single tree. Both birds sit. The male is of a glossy greenish-black, with a little brownish-grey on the wings and wing- coverts. The female has a white under-surface, but is otherwise similar.” The birds figured and described were collected at Derby, North-west Australia, in 1898. 198 Genits— PISCATRIX. PiscATRix Reich enbach, Nat. Syst. Vogel, p. vi., 1852 . . Type P. sula. Large Suline birds, comparatively small for this family, with long straight bills not hooked but bent at the tip, long thick neck, long wings, short legs and long toes, all the toes, including the hind toe, being connected with a web. The bill is longer than the head, rather broad at the base, laterally compressed anteriorly ; culmen ridge flattened and separated from laterals by a linear groove extending the whole length of the bill and showing no nostrils. The edges of the mandibles coarsely serrated, the serrations obsolete towards the base, the rami of lower mandible strong and deep enclosing a very narrow unfeathered pouch, the featherless tract extending round the base of the mandibles and round the eyes, the chin being naked. The culmen is less than half the length of the tail and more than twice the length of the metatarsus. The wing is long, but not twice the length of the tail ; the first primary is longest. The tail is very long and wedge-shaped ; it is composed of fourteen or sixteen feathers : probably the latter is the full number, the former due to age or moult. It is more than twice the length of the culmen and more than half the length of the wing. The legs are short and stout ; the metatarsus is coarsely reticulate throughout, the scales smaller on the back ; in length the metatarsus i^ less than half the culmen. The toes are long, the outer one slightly exceeding the middle one, which has the claw pectinated: the outer toe is about one and a haK times the length of the metatarsus ; all the toes are fully webbed, the hind toe connected to the inner with a web. The toes are reticulate ; this is peculiar, as generally in birds even having different metatarsal covering the toes bear regular scutes, apparently for ease in bending. This would seem to be the oldest toe-covering, but examination of the downy young of this genus shows the toe- covering to be more or less reticulate at that stage, the anterior joints showing irregular scutes broken up, the posterior joints regular reticulation. The downy young also shows no pectination on the 199 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. middle claw ; in the bill in the same stage a rather distinct hooked tip is seen and the nc^trils are distinctly shown as linear slits in a broad groove between the culmen and lateral edge, while serrations are not yet in evidence on the edges of the mandibles. The preceding applies wholly to Piscatrix. In the Austral Avian Record, Vol. II., pp. 55-6, 1913, I wrote as follows : “ Parasula, gen. nov. Differs from Sula Brisson in its much larger size and different number of tail-feathers : from Morus Vieillot in the different number of tail-feathers. Type, Sula dactylatra bedouti Mathews. “ Hemisula gen. nov. Differs from Sula Brisson in the number of tail- feathers and its proportionately shorter tail. Type, Sula leucogaster rogersi Mathews. Note. — ^All the Gannets have been lately, and without much reason, included in the genus Sula. The differences in size, coloration, structural proportions, and number of tail-feathers have all been ignored in favour of the view that, as the birds bore a family resemblance, they must be referred to one genus. If genera with any pretence to affinity be recognised, then Sula must be subdivided. The nomenclatural problems are too complex to be detailed here but wiU be fuUy discussed in my Birds of Australia. The species Pelecanus bassanus Linne and Sula dactylatra Lesson {cyanops Auct.) agree somewhat in size and coloration, but the former has twelve tail- feathers, the latter eighteen. The species Pelecanus piscator Linne and Pelecanus leucogaster Boddaert agree somewhat in size, but the former has sixteen tail-feathers, the latter fourteen ; the last-named disagrees entirely in coloration from the other three. In structural proportions these all differ notably. It must be admitted by every reasoning ornithologist that the difference between twelve and eighteen tail-feathers must be considered of generic import when it is realised that the former occurs in the North Atlantic and in the South Pacific, where it lives side by side with the latter. In the same manner the difference in coloration between P. leucogaster Boddaert and the others in itself would justify generic separation, when it is remembered that all the other genera and species have a uniform style of coloration which is quite different, and one which is practically unchanged in the same species with a North Atlantic, South Atlantic, and South Pacific distribution.” I herewith attempt to dispose of my promise as reprinted above, and further study has indicated facts which prove the soundness of my subdivision. In the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVI., 1898^ Ogilvie-Grant included all the species of the family Sulidce under one genus- name Sula. Eight synonyms are given and types are named against each. 200 PISCATKIX. and if these had been correctly determined, three generic names would at once have been available, but unfortunately neither the species nor the genera were accurately fixed. First, as type of Sula Brisson is given Sula sula ; as the type of 8ula Brisson by tautonymy must be Sula of Brisson, which equals Pelecanus leucogaster Boddaert, Ogilvie-Gr ant’s statement reads wrongly, and his identifi- cation of Sula sula was wrong, but his statement is right, the name used being wrong. Then the type of Dysporus Illiger is stated to be Sula hassana, but as lUiger’s name was simply a classical substitute for Sula Brisson, the type must be that of Brisson’s genus. Moms Vieillot is given as of the Nouv. Diet. d’Hist. Nat. 1817 and the type named S. sula, but that name was proposed by Vieillot in the Analyse nouv. Ornith. 1816, and the type by monotypy is Pelecanus bassanus Linne. Plaucus Bafinesque, Analyse, p. 69, 1815 : Beichenb. Av. Syst. Nat., p. vi., 1850. Type S. hassana ” is included, but Bichmond {Proceedings U.S. Nat. Mus., Vol. XXXV., p. 633, footnote, 1908) has observed: “ Plancus of Bafinesque, a nomen nudum, is one of ‘ Les Bapaces ’ of that author, and placed in the ‘ Sous-famille Ptiloderia, Les Nudicolles ’ near Vultur. Grant {Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVI., p. 423), synonymizes it with Sula ! ” Beichenbach’s name was also spelt Plancus. In view of such confusion the only possible method is to begin at the beginning and make out what I consider to be a correct fist of names. The references are given in detail in my synonymy : Sula Brisson 1760 Sula Scopoli 1777 Sula Lacepede 1799 Dysporus Ilhger 1811 Sularius Bafinesque 1815 Morus Vieillot, April 1816 Moris Leach 1816 (August) Moris Forster 1817 Dysporus Beichenbach 1852 Piscatrix Beichenbach 1852 Sula Beichenbach 1852 Plancus Beichenbach 1852 Aheltera Heine 1890 Type Pelecanus leucogaster Boddaert. = Sula Brisson. = Sula Brisson. New name for Sula Brisson. New name for “ Sula Lac.” Type P. bassanus Linne\ Nomen nudum and = = Morus VieiUot. = Dysporus Illiger. Type P. candida=P. sula Linne. Type P. leucogaster Boddaert. Type P. bassanus Linne. New name for “ Sula Bchb.” The above needs a Httle explanation. Sula was first proposed by Brisson, a non-binomial writer, and as one of his species was named “ Sula ” alone. VOL. IV. 201 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. that species automatically becomes the type of the genus, and that is the Pclccanus IcucogastcT Boddaert, as determined by W. L. Sclater as hereafter observed. Scopoli was the first binomial writer to use Brisson’s genus name and his usage was equivalent to that of Brisson. Lacepede afterwards named a genus Sulu, simply giving a diagnosis with no species attached and that covered the same forms as Brisson. Daudin almost immediately added species to Lacepede’s genus name and his congregation was Brissonian, so that the type remained the same. lUiger simply introduced Dysporus because Sula was not a classical word, and as authorities for the Sula he displaced he named “ Briss., Scop., Cuv., Lacep., Dumeril.” lUiger’s name then falls as an absolute synonym of Sula Brisson. This must be emphasized, as this name has so often been used for the group typified by P. hassanus Linne, and this is incorrect. This group is a valid genus, so that this point requires fuU consideration. Rafinesque substituted Sularius, as “ Sula Lac.” did not meet with his approval. VieiUot in his Analyse proposed Morus, giving as example “ Fou de Bassan Buff.” He notes “ Pelecanus Linn. Gm. Lath.” and never mentions Sula in any connection. Hence the name must be construed on the facts and the type by monotypy is Pelecanus hassanus Linne. It is probable that VieiUot simply intended Morus as an improvement on Sula Brisson, as in the following year (in the Nouv. Diet. d’Hist. Nat.) Morus is used for all the Gannets exactly agreeing with Sula Brisson. In a List of British Birds not recognised as an available list for nomenclatural purposes, Leach used Moris for the British Gannet. VieUlot’s work was published before AprU, whUe Leach’s did not appear before August in the same year (1816). In the following year (1817) Forster used Leach’s name Moris in an acceptable manner for the same species, which, of course, is equivalent to Morus VieUlot. No attempt at subdivision appears to have been made untU Reichenbach named four genera in 1852. He was somewhat unfortunate in his selection of generic and specific names as here shown : Dysporus lU. Piscatrix Reichb. Sula Briss. Plancus Klein. hassanus Briss. Candida Briss. fusca Briss. maior Rchb. Reichenbach apparently intended to name four distinct groups, which are easUy noted when Gannets are examined, but his names only cover three species ; the first and last species names are synonymous. The first name is invalid as it is a synonym of Sula Brisson, whUe the last name is preoccupied. 202 PISGATRIX. It will be noted that Reichenbach refers Plancus to Klein : that writer was pre-Linnean and non-binomial, and before Reichenbach revived Klein’s name it had been adopted in another sense twenty years earlier, ignoring Rafinesque’s introduction of a nomen nudum. Bonaparte in the Consp. Gen. Av., Vol. II., pp. 164-166, 1856, used Dysporus 111. for his P. sula group (by which he meant what we call P. leucogaster) ; Sula ex Brisson as of Vieillot 1818 for a series comprising P. bassanus Linne and its relations and also S. dactylatra Lesson, and Piscatrix Reichenbach for the '"'‘Candida Briss.” group. Since Bonaparte’s time, nearly sixty years ago, no one seems to have studied this group at all closely. Baird, Brewer and Ridgway {Water Birds of North Amer., Vol. II., p. 170, 1884) thirty years ago commented : “ The Gannets are perhaps properly separable into two genera, Sula and Dysporus^ the latter including only the S. hassana. But in considering the small number of American species, no great violence will be done in referring them to a single genus.” As synonyms of Sula Brisson, of which the type is given “ by elimination ” as Pelecanus leucogaster Bodd., Dysporus lUig., type P. bassanus Linn., Piscatrix Reich., type P. piscator Linn., and Plancus Reich., type P. parvus Gmel. (?), are cited. A careful examination of the forms associated would probably have induced a change of opinion, as it would have shown a confusion of distinct generic types. The reference of all the species to one genus by Ogilvie-Grant obviated any discussion of their relationships; such would be the natural conclusion, but Ogilvie-Grant’s classification shows signs of careful work, so that some other and more complex solution is required. Once more I note that the treatment in the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum^ regardless of the personality of the compiler, has prejudiced all later work, and again we see this refiected in the American Ornithologists’ Union s Checklist , 3rd ed., 1910, where Sula is admitted with no sub genera indicated, though such diverse forms as Sula cyanops (Sundevall) (recte S. dactylatra Lesson), Sula leucogastra (Boddaert), Sula piscator\ Linne (recte S. sula Linne) and Sula bassana Linne are included. A compalratively casual examination by an American ornithologist would have shown how unscientific such an association was. I shall attempt to show hereafter how distinct the genera are and how they may be defined. I have given the diagnosis of the genus Piscatrix in full, and would note the comparative differences observed and their importance. It must first be remembered that throughout the following remarks the species name sula Linne” refers to the bird described in the Catalogue of Birds under the name S. piscator Linne and not under the name S. sula Linne. The impropriety of the usage of the latter name for the bird described by 203 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. Ogilvie-Grant was shown some years ago and I will show later that Linne’s Pelecanus piscator is untenable and that we must fall back upon Lmne’s Pelecanus sula for the piscator bird. Firstly, P. hassanus Linne is distinguished from all other members of the family SuUdce by its large size and feathered face. When Baird, Brewer and Ridgway wrote : “ Dysporus : the latter including only the S. bassana,'’ this was governed by its reference to American birds only, for superficially wherever S. hassana is genericaUy placed, the South African capensis and the Australasian serrator must follow. That is, at the first glance, Pelecanus hassanus Linne, Dysporus capensis Lichtenstein, and Sula serrator Gray form a natural group separated by the feathering of the face from all the other Gannets. This superficial difference is emphasized by the fact that the tail is composed of twelve feathers only, whereas in every other Gannet the tail consists of fourteen, sixteen, or eighteen feathers. Although the “ hassana ” group show the greatest wing-length, it has comparatively the shortest biU, and though possessed of a long tail, this is exceeded proportionately by other members of the family. The culmen is less than twice the length of the tarsus and less than half the length of the tail, while the tail is less than half the wing in length. These proportions are shown by no other Gannet, though common to the three above associated. These facts would, in any other group, force the acknowledgment of the validity of the generic distinction by a scientific ornithologist. I now show a character which necessitates the instant admission of this generic group. The most reckless genus-lumper must be convinced that these birds deserve generic recognition when the scaly coverings of the legs and feet are demonstrated. I here give carefuUy-prepared drawings of the legs and feet of Piscatrix sula ruhripes (Gould) and Sulita serrator dyotti (Mathews). The former shows the characters I have detailed under the generic heading {ante) and the difference seen may be thus described. In the genus Sulita the toe-covering consists of a single row of regular scutes very distinct, and this row is continued in each case up the front of the metatarsus, a condition I have not heretofore observed in any bird, though I have closely examined the legs of most of the species of the Orders Ralliformes, Podicipiformes, Procellarii formes, Lariformes, Charadriiformes, Ardeiformes and Anseriformes. This extraordinary leg-covering only occurs in the three Gannets superficially associated as above, and is a wonderful confirmation of the accurate gauging of such characters. This leg-covering is seen in the downy young, with the egg-tooth still preserved in Sulita hassana, exactly as it is shown in the adult. This proves the ancient character of this feature. Now in the downy young of Piscatrix sula, as shown above, the characters seen in the adult 204 PISCATRIX. also occur almost unchanged. This indicates the very early divorce of the genus Sulita from the genus Piscatrix. SULITA. No system atist with any pretence to accuracy can now associate Pelecanus hassanus Linne in the same genus as Pelecanus sula Linne. 205 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. When the remaining Gannets come to be examined, these aU agree in having bare faces as described under the genus Piscatrix, and to the genus- lumper might constitute a single genus. They differ sufficiently, however, to be considered separable and 1 call the differences generic. For criticism of tbe plumage changes, combined with study of the varied proportions, show that this group is a very ancient one, a conclusion confirmed by study of their osteology, and that slight superficial distinction is of great phylogenetic value. I notice that the females exceed the males in size generally throughout the family. The birds pass through a brown coloration, uniform at first, then white on the belly and then white above. In the genus Sulita, distinct plumage changes differ from those of the remainder of the family ; and in the genus Sulttf which name falls upon my Hemisula — ^a name I provided for the species Pelecanus leucogaster Boddaert, — ^the brown coloration is retained in the adult, the breast and the remainder of the under-parts only becoming white. In addition to this retention of an immature phase of plumage, the only case in the family, Sula is characterised by its short tail and longer legs when contrasted with Piscatrix, which has also, while developing its tail-length, added a couple of tail-feathers to the two that Piscatrix has additional to the twelve of Sulita. Sula has the culmen more than twice the length of the metatarsus, while the tail is about twice the length of the culmen and also about half the length of the wing. The fact that this would tend to show is that Piscatrix has developed in exactly the opposite direction from Sula, though both have been derived from the same source. Both are small Gannets with long wings. The last form I would recognise is that typified by Sula dactylatra Lesson. This agrees in general coloration and structural features with Piscatrix, but the birds are large with a wing-length nearly equal to that of Sulita. The bill is very large proportionately, while the tail is comparatively short. The bill is more than half the length of the tail, which is decidedly less than half the length of the wing, while the tarsus is more than half the length of the bill. I have carefully considered the above and there can be no other conclusion than that the four groups should be recognised, and I maintain that these are of generic value. If such differences were proportionately observed in the Passeriformes, the birds showing them would be placed in different families. When a couple of tail feathers appear in a bird intervening between birds geographically as far apart as the poles, yet agreeing exactly, that 206 PISCATRIX. Parasula. Sulita. Sula. Piscatrix, bird must have undergone an environmental stress disproportionate to the alteration seen. An artificial key of the genera might be thus framed ; half a dozen other characters could be added in each case. A. Wing over 420 mm. a' BiU more than half the length of the tail 6' Bill less than half the length of the tail B. Wing under 420 mm. c' Bill more than half the length of the tail d' Bill less than half the length of the tail The preceding review is practically as written some months ago with the alteration of a few words only. I have left it, as it is rather a good example of the confusion commonly attending the interpretation of the Brissonian generic names. In the American Ornithologists’ Union’s Chech- list, 3rd Edition, 1910, p. 60, Sula was used as of Brisson, the type being given as “ [Sula] sula Bnsson= Pelecanus piscator Linnaeus.” It was due to the influence of American ornithologists that the Brissonian genera were concluded to be valid by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Consequently it would be considered that the supporters of Brisson would have accurately determined his types. I examined the description given by Brisson of his “ Sula ” and concluded it agreed fairly well with the bird known as “ leucogaster Boddaert ” : there was a probability however that it might have been based on the immature of the bird known (wrongly) as “ piscator Linne.” I was unable to definitely decide the question and therefore accepted the American view, though not absolutely certain as to its accuracy. While this account was in the press, W. L. Sclater has decided in favour of my first opinion, and I therefore reproduce his arguments before I give my criticism of some of his details. In the Bull. Brit. Orn. Club, Vol. XXXV., p. 48, Jan. 27, 1915, he wrote : “ Recently when engaged in preparing the new edition of the B.O.U. Lisi of British Birds, I had occasion to look into the question of the type of the genus Sula, and as I find I am not in agreement with what may be called the recognized authorities, I have put together the results of my researches in the following note : “ The genus Sula was first proposed by Brisson {Orn., Vol. VI., 1760, p. 494), and the type is without doubt [Sula] sula Brisson. This bird is, to my mind, the Brown Booby of tropical seas, which is generally known as Sula sula Linn., and is so described by Ogilvie-Grant {Cat. Birds B. M., XXVI., 1898, p. 436). 207 THE BIEDS OF AUSTEALIA. “ The further question arises as to what is the correct name for the Brown Booby. In the 10th Edition of Linnaeus, apart from the Solan Goose, only one Booby is mentioned : this is Pelecanus 'piscator (p. 134). The diagnosis is very imperfect, and might do for either the Brown or the Red-footed Booby, which is named in the Catalogue ‘ S. piscator. ^ The first reference, on which this species is founded or partially founded, is to Osbeck’s ‘ Travels in China.’ On referring to this work (p. 85 of the original Swedish edition, 1757 : p. 127 of the English translation) it will be found that Osbeck came across both species— the Brown and the Red-footed— in July, 1751, when off the south coast of Java, and that he believed that these were male and female respectively of the same species. Linnaeus’ Pelecanus piscator was founded on this conglomeration of two forms. ‘‘In the 12th Edition of Linnaeus two Boobies are named — Pelecanus piscator and P. sula. The first of these names is now obviously restricted to the Red-footed Booby. The plumage is described as white, and the first reference is to the so-called female in Osbeck’s description and to Brisson’s Sula Candida^ which is also undoubtedly the same species. “ With regard to Linnaeus’ Pelecanus sula, it does not seem possible to identify it with the Brown Booby, as the face and legs are described as red. And although there is a reference to Brisson’s ‘ Sula sula,' one must go by the diagnosis and not by the reference, and this name must be regarded as a doubtful synonym of Sula piscator. The next available name for the Brown Booby appears to be Boddaert’s Pelecanus leucogaster (PI. Enl. 1783, p. 57, No. 973) as was first pointed out by Nelson [Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, XVIII., 1905, p. 121). This name is founded on Buffon’s Petit Fou {Hist. Nat. Ois., Vol. VIII., 1781, p. 374), and is figured as the ‘ Fou de Cayenne ’ in the Planches Enluminees. The type, therefore, of the genus Sula is Sula leucogastra (Bodd.).” Under the succeeding species I give a detailed account of the Linnean species P. piscator and sula, and would point out that my account was prepared and in the printers’ hands before Mr. Sclater commenced his inquiry. It will be seen that I also reject Pelecanus piscator Linne as an unidentifiable mixture, but I see nothing in Osbeck’s account that can be referred to the Brown Booby, as Mr. Sclater indicates. Linne’s later readjustment of his P. piscator is untenable, so that that name must be dismissed from further consideration. Linne’s Pelecanus sula depends upon the diagnosis, not the references, as Mr. Sclater rightly concludes. When Mr. Sclater wrote : “ this name must be regarded as a doubtful synonym of Sula piscator ” he apparently meant “ of the 12th Edition.” I have also arrived at the same conclusion, but I regard it as absolutely synonymous and not doubtfully. 208 PISGATEIX. Consequently, it becomes the correct name for piscator Auct. =piscator Linne, Xllth Edition, not piscator Linne, Xth Edition. Sclater’s acceptance of Boddaert’s name leucogaster for the Brown Booby is in agreement with American writers, and Eothschild and Hartert, myself and various British and Continental and Colonial writers commonly since 1905. Sclater’s determination of Brisson’s Sula as the Brown Booby necessitates a readjustment of the group names to be used. The previous account was prepared with “ piscator ” Auct. as type of Sula, and I have altered the nomination only. Piscatrix Reichenbach becomes the genus name for the Linnean Pelecanus sula and Sula Brisson, the genus name (vice Hemisula mihi), for Boddaert’s Pelecanus leucogaster. The anomalous combinations Piscatrix sula Linne and Sula leucogaster Boddaert remind one of the similar incongruous nomenclature observed among the Owls, where we have or had, Asio otus, Otus asio, Strix aluco, and Aluco jlammea. In the present case we see a little charm in the phylogenetic relationship suggested by study of the forms and the new combinations. Thus I suggest that Piscatrix is more specialised than Sula, as the immature of Piscatrix bears a close resemblance to the immature of Sula ; the adult of Sula has, however, developed on the same lines as the immature, while Piscatrix has discarded the garb of the juvenile for a beautiful snowy plumage. Consequently Sula would represent the generalised stage of the Suline group, of which Piscatrix is a highly specialised offshoot. On p. 157, line 7 from the bottom, for Sula Brisson read Piscatrix Reichenbach. On p. 159, line 4 from the top, for Hemisula read Sula Brisson. VOL. IV. 209 Order PELECANIF0RME8 No. 280. Family SULID^, PISCATRIX SULA RUBRIPES. AUSTKALIAN RED-LEGGED GANNET. (Plate 225.)* SuLA RTTBREPES Gould, Sjnops. Biids Austr., pt. iv., App., p. 7, 1838 ; New South Wales (errore) = Raine Island, Queensland. Sula ruhripes Gould, Synops. BirdB Austr., pt. iv., App., p. 7, 1838 ; id., Proc. Zool. Soc. (Bond.) 1837, p. 156, 1838 ; Gray, List Birds Brit. Mus., pt. iii., p. 183, 1844 ; Stone, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 144, 1913. Sula piscator Gould, Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 79, 1846 ; Reichenbach, Synops. Av. Natat., pi. 53, fig. 853, 1850 ; Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 509, 1865 ; Gray, Handl. Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. ni., p. 126, 1871 ; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. II., p. 203, 1878; Sclater and Salvin, Zool. Chall. Rep., Vol. II., p. 120; Layard, Ibis 1880, p. 233 ; id., ib., 1881, p. 134 ; Salvador!, Om. Papua e. Moll., Vol. III., p. 419, 1882 ; Ramsay, Tab. List Austr. Birds, p. 24, 1888 ; Ogilvie- Grant, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVI., p. 432, 1898 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., p. 102, 1899 ; Campbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 987, 1901 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 102, 1906. Piscatrix Candida Reichenbach, Nat. Syst. Vogel, p. vi., 1852 (part) ; Bonaparte, Consp. Gen. Av., Vol. II., p. 166, 1856. Sula piscatrix Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 38, 1908 ; Macgilfivray, Emu, Vol. X., p. 224, pi. xxviii., 1910 ; id., ib., Vol. XIII., p. 148, 1914 ; North, Austr. Mus. Spec. Cat., no. 1, Vol. III., p. 347, 1912. Sula piscator piscator Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 242, 1912. Sula piscator rubripes Mathews, List Birds Austr., p. 98, 1913. Distribution. — Queensland. Extra-limital. Adult female. General colour above and below white tinged with buff ; greater upper wing-coverts, bastard-wing, primary-coverts and quills hoary grey, inner webs of quills paler and becoming white towards the base on the secondaries ; under wing-coverts white with the exception of the median and greater series which are for the most part grey. “ Bill greyish-black shading to pink at base ; naked skin roimd the eye blue ; gular pouch black ; line across the fore-head and running along the line of the upper mandible to the gape pink ; eye grey and white ; feet rose colour ” (Macgilfivray). Total length 710 mm. ; culmen 83, wing 392, tail 230, tarsus 40. * The Plate is lettered Svla rubripes. 210 T 1 i SULA RUBRIPES. iRED^LEGGJEIJ 6ANNETJ. AUSTRALIAN RED-LEGGED GANNET. Adult male. Similar to the adult female. Nest. A platform of sticks about 8 to 12 inches across, with the depression in the centre about one inch (MacgiUivray). Eggs. Clutch one ; ground colour bluish-white, covered with lime. Axis 66-68 mm. ; diameter 38-40. Breeding-season. May and July to September (Macgilhvray). Regarding this bird Gould said he would have liked to retain his name of ruhripes, “ did not the law of 'priority demand that it sho'uld he otherwise.’^ Of course Gould was a great upholder of the law of priority, and I am pleased to be able to use his name for the Australian form of this species. The only observations made in connection with this bird in Australian waters seem to be due to the Macgillivrays (at an interval of sixty odd years) at the same place. Gould gave the following account : “ I am . . . indebted to Mr. Macgilhvray for the foUowing notes, as weU as for a carefully executed diagram of the bill and face, by means of which I have been enabled to colour the soft parts correctly. ‘ With the exception,’ says Mr. Macghlivray, ‘ of one bird which perched on the rigging, and was caught while at sea in the neighbourhood of the Keeling Islands, we found this species only on Raine’s Islet, a vegetated sand-bank in the line of the Great Barrier Reef. When we landed there on the 29th of May, it appeared to me that the breeding-season was then over, but I was fortunate enough to find a solitary bird sitting upon its nest, which contained a single egg. The nest consisted of a few roots of a creeper common on the island, forming a platform eighteen inches in diameter laid upon a tuft of herbage. A few days after this the Gannets, having been much molested, entirely deserted the island during the day, returning at night in a body of several hundreds, to roost on the ground and low bushes near the centre of the island.’ Mr. MacgiUivray observed that the colouring of the bUl and soft parts also varies with the age of the individual ; in the first stage the bill is of a delicate bluish-pink, the pink tint predominating at the base of the upper mandible, the bare patch about the eye of a duU leaden hue, the pouch flesh-coloured ; in the second, the colouring of these parts is similar but somewhat brighter, and ultimately the hides become grey, and the legs and feet vermilion.” MacgiUivray, the elder, was at Raine Island in 1844-5 and no further observations seem to have been made untU Macgillivray, the younger, visited Raine Island in 1910 and gave the following account : Sula piscatrix MacgUlivray, Emu, Vol. X., p. 225, 1910 ; Raine Island. “ The Red-legged Gannet nests in groups in different parts of the island. 211 THE BIRDS OE AUSTRALIA. All of the nests are placed on the horizontal shrubby growth, and are a clear foot or more from the ground. The nest consists of a substantial interwoven platform of sticks, about 8 to 12 inches in diameter, depressed to about an inch in the centre for the reception of the single egg. The great majority (October 30) are occupied by fully-fledged young birds, most of them just ready to fly. Many have left the nest, and are roosting on the shrubby growdh round the old nests. There are very few small young birds, and still fewer eggs. The young are hatched out blind, with pale leaden-coloured skin, and with only an indication of down, distributed in the same way as in the other species, but with a very dark and shorter bill and dark mask, and this, instead of getting lighter as the bird grows older, gets darker, the bill and face of the fully-feathered young being almost black. The down on the nestling is also darker than in the other two kinds, and the fully-feathered young bird is of a dirty grey general colour, especially on the head, back, breast and abdomen, which is white in the adult. The bill and mask in the adult is creamy-white, with red border above the eyes and under the chin, and red legs. The legs of the mature young are leaden, with a tinge of pink. We find two adults, sitting on small young, with the bill and mask as in a mature adult, but with the general feathering of immaturity, leading us to believe that these birds do not attain to their mature plumage until two years at least have elapsed, and that they breed during the stage of immaturity. We cannot make this species leave their nests when sitting upon newly- hatched young.” Macgillivray {Emu, VoL XIII., p. 148, 1914) adds : “ On Raine Island, on 10th July, 1911, several nests with one egg in each and a few with one young bird. Great numbers of the birds were building.” The bird figured and described is a female collected on Raine Island, North Queensland, on 12th July, 1911, by Dr. W. Macgillivray, who gave it me. In the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVI., p. 432, 1898, Ogilvie-Grant used for this bird the name Sula piscator, basing it upon Linne’s {Syst. Nat., 12th ed., p. 217, 1766) Pelecanus piscator. In the American Ornithologists’ Union’s Checklist, 3rd ed., 1910, p. 61, the same name is used, the reference reading: '‘'‘Pelecanus piscator Linnseus, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, 1, 1758, 134 (China Sea).” I corrected the type locality to “ Java Seas ” in the Nov. Zool, Vol. XVIII., p. 242, 1912. I have now investigated this and give the details here so that the reader can follow the facts, the majority of the works consulted being rare. ^ Linne wrote {Syst. Nat., 10th ed., p. 134, 1758) : “ Pelecanus piscator. P. cauda cuneiform!, rostro serrato, remigibus omnibus nigris. Chin. Lagerstr. 8. Osb. iter 85. 212 AUSTRALIAN RED-LEGGED GANNET. Ansethetiis major melinus subtus albidus, rostro serrate dentato. Brown, jam, 481. “Anseri bassano affinis Catesb., car. 1, p. 87, t, 87. “ Sloan jam 2, p. 322, t. 271, 1 2. Raj. av. 191. Habitat in India utraque, Europa. “ Alter sexus albus remigibus nigris, alterniger abdomine canescente. Osbeck. ‘‘ Mandibula superior versus basin margine quasi dente utrinque mutilata. Nares clausae, Remiges in albo primores nigrae ; secundariae albae, sed apicibus extrorsum nigrae.” As far as the description is concerned it is incorrect, as the phrase “ remigibus omnibus nigris ” does not apply to the bird recognised above as “ piscator.^^ Ogilvie-Grant gives in his Key as the character of the species {lx., p. 424) : “ Outer webs of flight-feathers hoary-grey,” and on p. 433 emphasizes this by writing : “ This species may be recognized in all stages of plumage by the hoary-grey appearance on the outer webs of the quills.” Such a discrepancy might appear of little account and be ignored were it not that there is a Gannet showing the character “ remigibus omnibus nigris.” Linne’s description depends first upon the references “ Chin. Lagerstr. 8. Osbeck, iter 85.” As the former may give trouble to other investigators as it did to me, I might record that this is the title of a paper included in the Afnoen Acad., and that this was not published until 1759. The Armen Acad.. consists of theses presented at the University of Upsala, where Linne was professor, and hence his inclusion but without pagination, as he had the paper to read. The second reference, however, is available and consists of the same matter that is included in the Chin. Lagers. Peter Osbeck, one of Linne’s pupils, travelled to China, and in his Daghoek Ostindisk Resa which appeared in 1757, on p. 85 he described Diomedea piscatoria Masc. and Femina, procured on July 13th, 1751, a day’s sail this side of Java. Forster published an English translation in 1771, and from Vol. I., p. 127, I give the account of this bird : “ It was the male of the Pelecanus piscator Linn. Its bill is pointed, elevated, narrow, blueish on the outside, has a serrated margin, and is two palms long ; the throat and all about its eyes are without feathers, and covered, as the bill, with a blueish skin ; the upper jaw is elevated, and has on both sides a furrow running towards the point, which is bent, and has a prominence ; near the head the bill has an elevated part ; the lower jaw is narrow and streight ; the tongue which is fastened to it is arrow-shaped ; the cere is light blue ; the nostrils are 213 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. wanting, unless the notch at the base of the bill can be taken for them ; the pupils of the eyes are black: their irides are white and surrounded with black ; the head, the neck, back, the upper side of the wing, and the inner margin thereof, together with the tail are quite black ; the breast, the belly, and the uropygium are white, waved with blackish-grey ; the down and the lower coverts of the wings, in particular the ten longest and innermost, are white ; all the sixty-four quill feathers are very black, with whitish-grey below ; the first quill-feather is the longest, the next to it decrease gradually ; there are ten quiU feathers on the first joint, on the second thirty, on the third or innermost fourteen ; and more secondary feathers. The upper-coverts are tipped with grey ; the lower are dirty white, with little black edges ; the tail has fourteen feathers ; the thighs are covered with grey feathers ; the legs naked and whitish, like the four toes ; the first toe has five, the second four, the third three, and the fourth two joints ; no back toe is to be met / with ; the heart is oval : the liver is long. The bird is the size of a raven. The female is somewhat less : the bill is more serrated and reddish towards the head ; the neck and the upper-coverts of the wing are white ; the three first quill feathers are quite black, as in the male ; the next following ones are grey, spotted, and the last white, mixed with black ; the back, the coverts of the wings, and the thirteen feathers of the tail are white, spotted with reddish-yellow ; the middlemost feather in the tail is the longest ; the toes and legs are red ; the rest the same with the male. Whether this is the female of the first described bird, I leave to others to examine. It may be compared with the Anser hassanus of Albin^ Vol. I., p. 86.” On p. 293, having arrived back at Ascension Island in 1752, Osbeck wrote (to quote again Forster’s translation, Vol. II., p. 89): Diomedea adscensionis was caught here. It was entirely white, not even the thirteen feathers of the tail excepted ; had red feet, formed chiefly for swimming, and only black tips to its wings ; for the rest, it is like the Diomedea piscatoria {Pelecanus piscator) which is likewise to be met with here.” Consideration of the preceding compels me to dismiss Osbeck’s male bird as indeterminable, as I cannot see how the present bird can be compared as “ quite black ” and “ all the sixty-four qufil feathers are very black.” I would also note “ the female is somewhat less.” The description of the female appfies closely to this bird, but then the female is a larger bird than the male ; consequently the description of the male must have been drawn up from another species of Gannet. The type locality must be “ Java Seas,” and from Christmas Island, Indian Ocean, almost the type locality, three species of Gannets were brought back by Mr. (now Dr.) C. W. Andrews, F.R.S., of the British Museum, namely Sula sula (recte Sula leucogaster Boddaert), Sula 214 AUSTRALIAN RED-LEGGED GANNET. ahbotti and Sula piscatrix (recte Sula sula). The second named species Sula abhotti is a larger bird than Sula sula, the present species, and has “ very black ” primaries. It is quite possible that this is the bird described by Osbeck, and consequently Pelecanus piscator Linne must be regarded as a mixture and disused in any connection. Before leaving this subject, Linne’s synonymy of his species may be examined, as it might throw light upon the validity of the species. The first reference is to Browne’s Jamaica. Upon looking this up I find no description worth consideration, Browne writing : “ Varies much in its colour, which most frequently borders upon the yellowish.” Browne’s work was published in 1756 and he refers back, as he gives no figure, to Sloane and Catesby. Catesby in his Natural History of Carolina in 1731 gives a full description, where he notes variation, but adds a splendid figure which is easily recognisable as the bird known as Pelecanus leucogaster Boddaert. Catesby gives a reference to Sloane’s Jamaica 1725, and there at the place quoted by Linne I find no description, but the plate figures again Pelecanus leucogaster Boddaert. Ray, the only other authority cited by Linne, in 1713, p. 191, gives no figure and his description reads : “ Albo et cinereo colore varia est : Anaitis Moscoviticse magnitudine.” Thus of Linne’s four synonyms two are quite meaningless, while the other two refer to Pelecanus leucogaster Boddaert. Consequently this supports strongly my contention that Pelecanus piscator Linne cannot be used for any species, apparently three or more species being confused under that name. Linne himself recognised this fact, for in his twelfth edition, p. 217, he included Pelecanus piscator, but restricted it to the Armen Acad. 4, p. 239 femina, Diomedea piscatoria femina, Osb. it. 86, and Sula Candida Briss. av. 6, p. 501.” The first reference is to the published account, cited in 1758 as “ Chin. Lagerstr. 8,” then only in MS. The last named is quite a ^ood reference to the present species, the description, as usual with most of Brisson’s, being full and accurate. On p. 218, ed. XII.j Linne described Pelecanus sula thus : “ P. cauda cuneiformi, corpore albido, rostro dentato, remigibus primoribus apice nigricantibus, facie rubra. Habitat in Pelago indico. “ Bassano dimidio minor. Facies nuda, rubra. Pedes rubri. Mandibula superior magis apice adunca. Remigibus non tantum primores, sed et secundaria© extrorsum nigricantes, Rectrices que apice fuscescentes.” To this Linne added the synonymy he rejected from his P. piscator, with the only addition of “ Sula ” Briss. av, 6, p. 495, which is not referable here. 215 THE BIEDS OF AUSTRALIA. Tbe synonyms given by Linne do not agree in any way with his description, all belonging to either P. leucogaster Boddaert, or being indeterminable as shown above. Apparently no one read the description but simply looked at the figures until Nelson did {Proceedings Biol. Soc. Wash., Vol. XVIII., p. 121, 1905), as this name was used for Pelecanus leucogaster Boddaert, to which no word of Linne’s description applies, while it is an accurate one of the present species. Why Ogilvie-Grant used it I cannot say, as he rejected Sula fiber Linne, a name commonly in use for P. leucogaster Boddaert, recognising that as the immature of what he called “ piscatorf'^ suggesting that he had studied Linne’s description. In the present case it is very obvious that he used a name to displace an incorrect one without making any attempt to see what the displacing name referred to. The rejection of Linne’s P. piscator of the 10th Edition is therefore inevitable, but it is pleasing to find such an excellent substitute in his P. sula of the 12th Edition. We have no idea of the type locality of Linne’s bird, as “ Habitat in Pelago indico ” meant nothing in Linne’s usage. None of the synonyms help, so that an arbitrary selection must be made. We cannot use “ Java Sea,” as Osbeck’s bird is made the basis of the P. piscator of the twelfth. I suggest therefore that the description given by Linne fits the other bird noted by Osbeck as Diomedea adscensionis, and that it is based on Osbeck’s specimen. I therefore designate Ascension Island, Atlantic Ocean, as the type locality of Pelecanus sula Linne, Syst. Nat., 12th Ed., p. 218, 1766. The Pacific Ocean birds are larger in every dimension than Atlantic birds, and the soft parts seem to differ, but no series are available with fuU data showing local variation in this respect. 216 Genus— S U L I T A . SuLiTA Mathews, Austral Av. Eec., Vol. II., p. 123, 1915 . . Type S. bassana. Morus Vieillot, Analyse nouv. Ornith., p. 63, 1816 . . Type JS. bassana. (Not Morum Bolten, 1798.) Moris Forster, Synopt. Cat. Brit. Birds, p. 59, 1817 . . Type 8. bassana. (Note : Mis-speUing of Morus only.) Plancus Eeichenbach, Nat. Syst. Vogel, p. vi., 1852 . . Type 8. bassana. (Not Plancus Curtis 1833.) Also spelt — Plaucus Ogilvie-Grant, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVI., p. 423, 1898. Largest Suline birds with long Suline bill, medium thick neck, long wings, stout body, long tail, short legs and long toes, toti-pahnate. The bill is long, longer than the head, straight not hooked, but slightly bent at the tip which is sharp : biU rather broad at the base, but laterally compressed anteriorly, the culmen ridge flattened and separated from the laterals by a deep linear groove extending the whole length of the bill and showing no nostrils in the adult stage. The edges of the mandibles are finely serrated : the rami of the lower mandible strong and deep, enclosing a very narrow triangular unfeathered tracts which extends linearly a short way down the throat. In front of the eyes and below, bordering the gape, bare skin is present, but the cheeks and chin, save for the narrow strip above mentioned, are feathered. The neck is of medium length and thick. The wing is long, with pointed feathers scalloped towards their tips, the first primary longest, the remainder rather rapidly shortening. \ The tail is long, about half the length of the wing and more than twice the length of the culmen : it is composed of twelve feathers, being wedge- shaped, the two middle feathers very pointed. The legs are short, but comparatively long and slender ; the metatarsus is more than half the length of the culmen. The metatarsal covering is very peculiar, as fully described and figured in connection with the preceding genus. It should be noted that the hind toe is very short in comparison with the hind toe of the previous genus and the covering is exactly the opposite. Thus, whereas the three front toes are very regularly covered with scutes, the hind toe shows a reticulate face. In the genus 8ula the three VOL. rv. 217 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. front toes are reticulately covered, whereas the hind toe shows fairly regular scutes. The figure given obviates a detailed description, and the discussion given under the preceding genus shows the great distinction between this and the previous genus. The nestling with egg- tooth still present on the cuhnen has the leg-covering as seen in the adult. I have given a new name to this genus, as Morus may be considered invalid on account of the prior Morum, and Moris is simply a mis-spelling, as Klein called the bird Plancus morus, and both Forster’s and Vieillot’s names are taken from that origin. Forster simply used Leach’s name, and Leach is the author of so many mis-spellings that it becomes certain this is another one. 218 kf. '*';•■■■ ■,^' ..■.K'^’^}:‘'r y:,v)k[i. ’*■■ ' ks ^'’-V'"' . .V ^■. A ; ■:-■• ,: .<■’ V ’nn • •• S’. f; '-A ■ 'l *1 i '•' I wr; ff” > 7 Order PELECAN1F0RME8 No. 281. Family SULIDJE, SULITA SERRATOR DYOTTI. AUSTKALIAN GANNET. (Plate 226.)* SuLA SEEBATOE DYOTTI Mathews, Austral Avian Record, Vol. II., p. 63, 1913 ; Tasmania. Sula australis (not Stephens 1826) Gould, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1840, p. 177 : Tasmanian Seas ; Gray, in “ Dieffenbach’s Travels in New Zeal.,” Vol. II., App., p. 200, 1843 (part) ; id., List Birds Brit. Mus., pt. iii., p. 183, 1844 ; Gould, Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 76, 1846 ; Reichenbach, Synops. Natatores, pi. 54, Nos. 2287-8, 1850 ; Layard, Ibis 1863, p. 246 ; Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 504, 1865 ; Witmer Stone, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 144, 1913 ; Agnew, Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 94, 1913. Sula serrator (not Gray 1843) Bonaparte, Consp. Gen. Av., Vol. II., p. 166, 1856 ; Schlegel, Mus. Pays-Bas, Vol. VI., Pelec., p. 38, 1863 ; Gray, Handl. Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. m., p. 126, 1871 ; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. II., p. 203, 1878 ; Legge, Papers and Proc. Roy. Soc. Tasm., 1886, p. 244, 1887 ; id., ib., 1887, p. 96, 1888 ; Ramsay, Tab. List Austr. Birds, p. 24, 1888 ; North, Austr. Mus. Cat., no. 12, p. 363, 1890 ; Ogilvie-Grant, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVI., p. 428, 1898 (part) ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., p. 102, 1899 ; Campbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 981, 1901 ; Hill, Emu, Vol. II., p. 167, 1903; Carter, i6., Vol. III., p. 211, 1904 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 102, 1906 ; Sharpe, Hist. CoU. Nat. Hist. Brit. Mus., Vol. II., p. 154, 1906; Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 38, 1908; Mattingley, Viet. Nat., Vol. XXV., p. 20, 1908 ; Cole, Emu, Vol. VIII., p. 78, ^1908 ; White, ib., p. 202, pi. xvii., 1909 ; Hill, ib., p. 223, 1909 ; Littler, ib., Vol. IX., p.l47, 1910; id., Handb. Birds Tasm., p. 201; White, Emu, Vol. XI., p. 35, 1911; North, Austr. Mus. Spec. Cat., no. 1, Vol. III., p. 339, 1912 ; White, Emu, Vol. XII., p. 161, 1913. Sula sula (not Linne) Dove, Emu, Vol. V., p. 159, 1906. Sula bassana serrator Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 241, 1912. Sula serrator dyotti Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. II., p. 63, 1913. Sula serrator serrator Mathews, ib. Morus serrator dyotti Mathews, List Birds Austr., p. 98, 1913. * The Plate is lettered Sula serrator. 219 THE BIEDS OF AUSTRALIA, Range. New South Wales ; Victoria ; Tasmania ; South Austraha ; West Australia. Adult male. General colour above and below pure white ; crown of head, sides of face, and upper hind-neck golden buff ; bastard-wing, primary-coverts and quills dark greyish-brown, paler and more hoary grey on the inner webs of the quills : the latter have white shafts towards the base ; the four middle tail-feathers greyish- brown with white shafts, remainder of tail white. Bill slate, bare skin on the face slate-blue : iris silver-grey, feet dull greenish-black with the toes hght green. Total length 980 mm. ; culmen 89, wing 470, tail 240, tarsus 60. Adult female. Similar to the adult male. Immature. General colour above greyish-brown, all the feathers tipped with white, wedge-shaped on the back, scapulars, wing-coverts, head, and hind neck, and edged with white at the tips of the primary-quills ; under-surface for the most part white, with some brown feathers on the throat, fore-neck, and thighs. Nestling. Covered with white down. Nest. Composed on the ground, shaped like a flat cone from 4 to 6 inches high. Egg cavity from 6 to 8 inches by one to two deep. Eggs. Clutch, one ; hme covered. Axis 78 to 82 mm. ; diameter 49-50. Breeding-season. October to January. This fine bird, the Australian representative of the “ Bird with a History ” of European fame, seems to have little recorded history. Mr. J. W. Mellor has written me : “ This Gannet is seen in fair numbers along the coast of South Australia, but does not care so much for the small inlets, keeping more to the open and rougher seas. I have noted it along the southern shores of Kangaroo Island, and also in Spencer’s Gulf from Port Lincoln upwards. The greatest sight that I ever saw in connection with the breeding of these birds was on Cat Island, near Babel Island in Bass Straits, while on the Royal Australasian Ornithologists’ Union’s 8th Congress Expedition in the S.S. ‘ Manawatu.’ An extract from my diary reads : ‘ Dec. 4, 1908. We weighed anchor at 5 a.m., and steamed north to the end of Flinders Island where we left a party of nine to investigate Flinders Island in this locality ; the steamer then rounded Flinders Island, ^nd steamed south to Cat Island, where we cast anchor at noon, and after lunch the whole party landed to view the Gannet rookery, where the birds covered about an acre of ground. The birds were sitting on their nests, which were placed thickly over the whole of the area ; many nests contained large young, while others had eggs in all stages of incubation. The sight of this vast horde of bird life was truly inspiring, as it was estimated that 8,000 to 10,000 birds were breeding here. The birds were extremely tame, allowing us to go amongst them without flying off their nests. The clutch was one egg ; the nests were small mounds of dirt and excreta, which had accumulated for years, as the place had apparently been used for ages by the birds. The silver gulls were about amongst the gannets, and were quick to spy an unprotected 220 AUSTRALIAN GANNET. egg or small young, and would dart down on it in an instant, and start to destroy it, as they do to other sea-birds not of their own species. The peculiar manner in which the birds “ change sittings ” was watched with interest : a bird would come in from the sea, and after circling round a few times, would settle in the rookery near to where its mate was on the nest : it would then approach the sitting bird, and after cooing for some time and stretching out its neck, would start caressing by placing its bill first on one side of the sitting bird and then on the other. This crossing of necks kept on for quite a few minutes, all the while the incoming bird getting closer and closer to the breast of the sitting one ; then the last named would gradually back off the nest, and the relieving bird get on, so that the egg or young was not exposed for a moment, and the robber gulls were not permitted to see for an instant the offspring. The gulls are nevertheless good as scavengers, as they pick up and fly off with the superfluous fish that are brought in for the young gannets, and which would soon decompose in the hot sun and make the locality uninhabitable. The food of the young gannet we noted consisted principally of fish, some quite a foot long. In catching the fish, the gannet employs the same tactics as the tern ; mounting above its prey, the bird comes down head first, the sharp bill cleaving the surface of the water and allowing the heavy body to go beneath the surface with a mighty splash, and in a moment or two the gannet emerges with its prey in its bill.’ ” Mr. H. Stuart Dove in a letter dated January 30th, 1912, wrote : “ There has been a very large concourse of this species on the North-West Coast of Tasmania during the present month. On the 5th, hundreds were observed diving into the sea near the Mersey training-wall — diving, as noted some six years, during the afternoon and evening until about 7.30.” Mr. Dove’s note here follows : “ Sula sula (not Linne) Dove, EmUy Vol. V., p. 159, 1906. It is very interesting to watch the diving operations of the Gannet {Sula ^ula) especially when conducted on so large a scale as has been the case recently on this coast. A great shoal of the delicate little fish called whitebait has made its appearance in our waters, and hundreds of bird pursuers are relentlessly following it up. Yesterday afternoon I counted 63 Gannets in one group floating on the blue waters of the Mersey, just where it debouches into the Strait, enjoying in the sunshine a brief spell from their fishing labours. Although I have repeatedly watched the Gannets diving off the coast of New South Wales and elsewhere, I never remember seeing them present in such numbers as here just now. When over a good shoal of fish they literally tumble by dozens and scores into the water, reminding the watcher of a 221 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. shower of huge snowflakes melting into the waves ; it is marvellous how they avoid striking each other when descending in such numbers and with such velocity into a small patch of water, each apparently oblivious of everything except that one little object it has sighted beneath the surface. The dive into deep water is usually made from a height of 18 to 30 feet, and is a literal ‘ header,’ the bird usually entering the waves nearly vertically, and with a splash ; a perceptible interval elapses before it reappears some little distance away, giving its yellowish beak a swish backwards and forwards after swallowing its prey. It usually sits a few seconds upon the water before going aloft again, thus differing from the Tern, which takes to its wings the moment it reaches the surface. When diving in shallow water close to the rocks, the Gannet begins the descent from a height of 4 or 5 feet only, instead of 20 or 30 feet. The wings are not closed, as is usually supposed, at the beginning of the descent, but remain expanded until the bird is close to the surface, and apparently assist in guiding it to the exact spot which it desires to reach ; it then flaps them suddenly to the side of the body, and the admirable adaptability of its shape to its aquatic life may be well seen just as it enters the water, the long beak, head, neck, and body stretched out rigidly in one straight line, the legs and wings tucked closely in, everything arranged so as to offer as little resistance as possible to the water. Few prettier sights can be imagined than a company thus engaged in diving on a spring afternoon, with the sunshine above and the blue waves beneath : the plunge is made with such zeal (there are no half-measures about the bird’s dive).” McClymont, in the Emu, Vol. III., p. 56, 1903, noted : “ On the 17th of October, 1902, one Gannet was diving in the estuary of the Derwent. . . . The dive of the Gannet (as far as the eye can judge) is taken vertically, or very nearly so. As a rule the wings remain expanded until the bird reaches (or almost reaches) the water. But occasionally the wings are closed for an instant at some height above the water — ^perhaps in order to accelerate the speed by reducing the extent of surface to which the air offers resistance. The foregoing remarks apply to dives taken from a height of about 15 feet and over. When they are taken from a lower elevation the course is frequently an oblique one.” In Campbell’s Nests and Eggs there is another account by J. C. Gabriel of the Gannet rookery on Cat Island. It covers the same details as MeUor’s given above, but Gabriel writes : “ We found between 2,400 and 2,600 birds (roughly estimated by measiming) seated in the locality on their nests.” If MeUor’s area of “ an acre ” is anywhere near correct, then Gabriel’s number is more likely to be accurate than Mellor’s guess. 222 AUSTKALIAN GANNET, Little else regarding its habits appears to have been written. Mr. Tom Carter found an old bird dead on the beach as far north as Point Cloates on the 30th of September, 1911 : iris yellow, bill greenish-grey, legs and feet purplish with green stripes down tarsus and toes. The bird figured and described is a male, collected in Tasmania on December 10th, 1909, by Mr. Dyott, who very kindly gave me the skin and after whom the bird is named. This Gannet so closely resembles the European bird that superficially the only distinction is in the tail : the European bird, when adult, having the tail pure white, the Australian one having the four middle tail-feathers brown, the remainder white. The narrow strip of naked skin down the throat is of about the same length. In South Africa a similar Gannet is found, but the tail is wholly brownish-black, and the naked strip extends about six inches down the throat. These three may be considered distinct species, but they are so nearly related that I at one time considered them sub- species only. They constitute quite a distinct group, all three species agreeing in the peculiar metatarsal and toe-covering and feathered cheeks and chin. This group, when contrasted with the whole of the remaining Gannets, must be considered as of generic value. The New Zealand bird was named by Gray, a few years after Gould had described the Australian bird under a pre-occupied name, and Gray’s name has been commonly used for both the Neozelanic and Australian birds. I find the latter never get the coloring on the head and neck of such a deep shade as the former, and therefore are subspecifically separable. The forms of the genus I would recognise may be named thus : Sulita bassana (Linne). “ Coasts of North Atlantic.” Sulita capensis (Lichtenstein). South Africa. > Sulita senator senator (Gray). \' New Zealand. Sulita serrator dyotti (Mathews). Australia. Sula australis Gould (not Stephens 1826) 1841 is a synonym. I had nearly overlooked the fact that though this bird has no history it was figured in the Watling Drawings No. 293. Watling noted : “ One-fourth the size of nature. Native name Doo-ro-dang.^^ No mention of this is made in the Supplement to the General Synopsis, where Latham dealt with the birds figured by Watling, but in the 223 THE BIRDS OP AUSTRALIA. Gen. Histofy of Birds, Vol. X., p. 438, 1824, is a note under Lesser Gannet, which reads as follows : “ The Lesser Gannet is also found in New Holland, and called by the natives Doo-ro-dang.^^ Latham’s Lesser Gannet of the Synopsis, Vol. III., pt. n., p. 611, was, however, Pelecanus sula of Linne. On p. 609, under the Common Gannet, Latham had noted : “ Said also to have been met with frequently by our several voyagers in many parts of the southern ocean ; but we are not clear whether the sort meant by them is the Common Gannet here treated of, or the lesser one, below described.” 224 I A Genus — P A R A S U L A . Para-SULA Mathews, Austral Avian Record, Vol. II., p. 55, 1913 Type P. dactyMra. Large Suline birds with long bill, medium thick neck, long wings, long tail, stout short legs and long toes, toti-palmate ; the base of the jaws and chin naked, but no naked strip down centre of throat. In general structural characters this genus agrees with the preceding, differing in the naked bases of the jaws and chin, different proportions of wings, tail, culmen, etc., different number of tail-feathers and the metatarsal and toe-covering. The culmen is longer than the head, more than half the length of the wing, but less than twice the length of the metatarsus. The tail is wedge-shaped, consisting of sixteen feathers, the central feathers broader, the outside ones not so short as in Sulita, and the length less than half that of the wing. The legs are short and stout and more than half the length of the culmen ; the metatarsus coarsely reticulate on the front and sides, smaller scales behind, but the scales not so fine as in the preceding genus ; the toe- covering consists of reticulations which can be traced in the juveniles as scutes irregularly broken up, but even in the downy young no regular scutes are preserved. The toes are long, the middle claw strongly pectinated. This genus has a tropical distribution and would probably claim nearer relationship to Sulita than either PiscMrix or Sula. This should demand the attention of future investigators. VOL. IV. 225 Order PELECAN1F0RME8 Family 8VLIDM. No. 282. PARASULA DACTYLATRA PERSONATA. AUSTRALIAN MASKED OANNET. (Plate 227.)* SuLA PERSONATA Gould, Pfoc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1846, p. 21 ; Raine Island, North-east Australia. 8ula personata Gould, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1846, p. 21 ; id., Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 77, 1846 ; Reichenbach, Synops. Natatores, pi. 54, fig. 2291, 1850 ; Macgillivray, Narr. Voy. “ Rattlesnake,” Vol. II., p. 369, 1852 ; Witmer Stone, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 144, 1913. 8ula cyanops (not Sundevall) Bonaparte, Consp. Gten. Av., Vol. II., p. 166, 1866 ; Schlegel, Mus. Pays-Bas., Vol. VI., Pelec., p. 39, 1863 ; Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 506, 1865 ; Gray, Handl. Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. m., p. 126, 1871 (part) ; Masters, Proc. Linn. Soc., N.S.W., Vol. I., p. 64, 1876 ; Ramsay, Tab. List Austr. Birds, p. 24, 1888 ; North, Austr. Mus. Cat., no. 12, p. 379, 1890 ; Ogilvie-Grant, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVI., p. 430, 1898 (part) ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., p. 102, 1899 ; Campbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, p. 985, 1901 ; Tunny, Emu, Vol. I., p. 73, pi. ii., 1902 ; Hartert, Nov. Zool., Vol. XII., p. 206, 1905 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 102, 1906 ; Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 38, 1908 ; Macgillivray, Emu, Vol. X., p. 224, pis. xxvi., xxvii., 1910 ; North, Austr. Mus. Spec. Cat., no. 1, Vol. III., p. 343, 1912 ; Macgillivray, Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 148, 1914. 8ula dactylatra Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 9, 1911 ; Mathews, ib., p. 242, 1912. 8ula dactylatra bedouti Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 189, 1913 ; Bedout Island, Mid-west Australia. 8ula dactylatra persormta Mathews, ib. ; Mathews and Iredale, Ibis 1913, p. 417 ; Iredale, Trans. New Zeal. Inst., Vol. XLV., 1912, p. 86, 1913 ; Rothschild, Bull. Brit. Om. Club, Vol. XXXV., 1915, p. 43. Parasula dactylatra personata Mathews, List Birds Austr., p. 99, 1913. Parasula dactylatra bedouti Mathews, ib. Distribution. North-east to North-west Australia. * The Plate is lettered personata. 226 ■ M: * 'f f. ;>, H.Gi ^Icl. del. Witherby & C° j 4 SUL A PERSONATA ( MA SIZED GA NNET). AUSTRALIAN MASKED GANNET. Adult male. Gteneral colour above and below pure white ; bastard-wing, primary-coverts and quills chocolate-brown, somewhat paler on the secondaries ; inner webs of primaries hoary or silvery -grey, becoming white on the inner webs of the secondaries towards the base ; tail-feathers also chocolate-brown with white shafts. Bill light yellowish-horn ; base and skin dull purplish-blue ; iris yellow ; feet blue. Total length 840 mm. ; culmen 99, wing 417, tail 177, tarsus 56. Adult female. Similar to the adult male but larger. Total length 860 mm. ; culmen 105, wing 429, tarsus 59. Downy young. Pure white in colour (Macgillivray). Nest. None (J. T. Tunny). Eggs. Almost invariably two in number (Macgillivray). Two eggs (J. T. Tunny), bluish-white, covered with lime. Axis 64-69 mm. ; diameter 44-46. Breeding-season. July onwards (Macgilhvray) to October (?). “ The Masked Gannet, a fine white bird, larger than the other two (Brown and Red-legged), with dark pinions and conspicuous pale leaden- coloured mask, comes next in numbers to the Brown Gannet, and their nests and young are scattered amongst the others promiscuously all over the islet. The nests in size, formation and situation differ in no wise from those of the Brown bird, being mostly on the ground. The eggs, larger in general than those of the Brown, are almost invariably two in number. The nestling Masked Gannet is much the same as that of the Brown, except that the mask is decidedly darker in colour. The downy young is pure white in colour, and, when feathered, a greyish or dirty white, the mask getting lighter coloured as the bird matures. The sitting birds of both species allow of a close approach, becoming restless and picking up and throwing the sticks and shells of the nest from side to side. When closer, they often disgorge one or more good-sized fish, then run off the nest with shuffling feet and flapping wings till they rise on the wing. This disgorging is not done as a means of offence, the fish being given more as an offering to distract the attention of an enemy from themselves until escape is possible, or even from their young, much in the same way as it is disgorged when the bird is buffeted by a Frigate Bird.” * In Vol. XIII., p. 148, 1914, Macgillivray added the following : “At the time of Mr. McLennan’s visit to Raine Island, on 10th July, 1911, a few of these Gannets had selected nesting sites, but none had laid. One egg was laid before he left on the 15th July.” The preceding seem^ the only field notes recorded in connection with the Northern Australian bird, other observations recorded by Hull and Iredale for birds from Norfolk, Lord Howe and the Kermadec Islands being referable to a different subspecies. * Mewjgillivray, Emu, Vol. X., p. 225, 1910 (Raine Island). 227 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. In the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum this bird is called Suh, cyanops, as of SundevaU 1837. A footnote reads : “ The description of S. dactylatra given by Lesson is unrecognisable.” This footnote referred to the citation; *^Sula dactylatra Less., ‘ Voy. CoquiUe,’ Vol. I., p. 494, 1826,” a second quotation reading : “ id. Traite d’Orn., p. 601, 1831.” I investigated this matter and my results were given in the Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 9, 1911, where I commented : “ This remark (^.e. the footnote above quoted) may be applicable to the note given in the ‘ Voy. CoquiUe,’ but certainly not to the account in the Traite, which fixes the species as the bird called cyanops by SundevaU six years later. It appears probable that the Australian bird wiU bear the name given to it by Gould, viz., per sonata, but I have not yet sufficient material to decide.” Though giving the species a range “ Tropical seas throughout the world,” no subspecies were admitted by Ogilvie-Grant. He, however, gave a footnote (p. 431) : “ Judging from the descriptions published by various authors the colours of the soft parts in 8 . cyanops vary greatly.” My own investigations into the records tend to show that the variation is due to locality, while the Norfolk Island birds seem to be larger than typical East Australian birds, while Atlantic birds, which are typical dactylatra, are smaller throughout. Hence I preserve Gould’s specific name in a sub-specific sense for the Australian birds and will leave those from Norfolk Island to a later date. I refrain from giving measurements, as these vary according to the methods used by different individuals, but if these are taken correctly, my conclusions wiU be found to be accurate; the meta- tarsus and culmen shows the greatest discrepancies, being notably less in the Atlantic bird. The bird figured and described is a male, collected on Bedout Island, Mid- west Australia, on the 24th of May, 1901. While the preceding was in the printers’ hands, a review of this species appeared in the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists'’ Club, Vol. XXXV., pp. 41-45, Jan. 27th, 1915, by the Hon. W. Rothschild. Though complaining that his own previous work had not been fully recognised by some writers, Mr. Rothschild writes : “ Before going into the details of the cyanops group I must clear up a vexed question of synonymy,” quite ignoring the fact that in his own Journal, the Novitates Zoologicce, in 1911, the “ vexed question ” had been discussed and “ cleared up ” in the same manner as he now does it three and a half years later. Example is better than precept, and acknowledgment of previous work would have more forcibly brought the mistakes of others home to them. 228 AUSTEALIAN MASKED GANNET. Rothschild has used the bill and feet, size and coloration, and characterizes the subspecies as follows : Suln dactylatra dactylatm Less. Bill horny blue-grey, very slender ; feet and legs yellow. Range : Ascension Island and S. Atlantic Coasts. Sula dactylatra melanops Hartl. Bill greenish-yellow, slender ; feet and legs slatey-blue to dull black. Range : Western Indian Ocean (Red Sea and Islands north of Madagascar). Sula dactylatra personata Gould. Bill yellow, very stout and large ; feet and legs greenish-blue. Range : Western Pacific. Sula dactylatra californica Rothsch, nov. Bill bright yellow, very thick ; feet and legs orange. Range : Coasts of California and Central America. Ohs . — ^In addition to the colour of the soft parts, this race differs from S. d. dactylatra in having a much larger and stouter bill. Suh, dactylatra granti Rothsch. Bill red ; feet bluish-green. Range : Galapagos Islands. In his account Rothschild also admits that “ sea-birds are much more restricted in their areas than was formerly supposed,” a fact I have emphasized for some years now. I would still leave in abeyance the matter of the Australian subspecies until I have studied my large Eastern Australian series. It will be observed that Rothschild has not mentioned my Sula dactylatra hedouti, and has not included its locality under any of the forms he has recognised. Consequently I cannot understand where he would place it. It neither comes from the Western Indian Ocean nor the Western Pacific, so that it might be regarded as the sixth form. I, however, am not certain as to its status, and therefore have placed it with S. d. personatay very probably incorrectly. 229 Genus — S U L A . Sul A Brisson, Omith., Vol. VI., p. 494, 1760 . . Type S. Uucogaster. Also spelt — Svca Temminck, Manuel d’Orn., p. 592, 1815. Jtda EUman, Zoologist 1861, p. 7472. Dysporus Illiger, Prodromus Syst. Mamm. et Av., p. 279, 1811 .. .. .. .. .. Type 8. leucogaster. Also spelt — Diaporus Boie, Isis 1826, p. 980. Sularius Rafinesque, Analyse Nat., p. 72, 1815 (c/. Auk, 26, p. 50) . . . . . . , . . . . . Type 8. leucogaster. Abeltera Heine, Nomencl. Mus. Hein. Ornith., p. 351, 1890 . . . . . . . . . . . . Type 8. leucogaster. Hemisula Mathews, Austral Avian Record, Vol. II., p. 55, 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . Type 8. leucogaster. Small Suline birds of dark coloration above, with general characters as in Piscatrix, but with different proportions. The biU is a little longer, but the tail is much shorter, while the metatarsus and toes are notably long. The bill is typically Suline, more than half the length of the tail, but less than twice the metatarsus. The wing is long, more than twice the length of the tail. The metatarsus is coarsely reticulate with small scales, the scales being smaller on the hinder aspect. The toes have the posterior Joints clearly reticulate, the anterior ones covered with scutes more or less broken up. This genus is defined at once by the coloration of the adult, a character differentiating it at once from the rest of the Suline birds. The immature plumage of this bird and Piscatrix show great similarity, while the adults show just as great a dissimilarity. The evolution of Piscatrix from its immature whole brown plumage passes through the stage when the brown is lost on the belly first. The present genus seems to show a peculiar stoppage in this course, this bird showing a brown coloration throughout, save the breast and abdomen, which are pure white. Though practically the same wing-length is developed, the tail in Piscatrix has grown much longer, the metatarsus lengthening in 8ula. 230 w ' . ’ ■ *■( if*' >•! ' S;': '':'y,.:'X^:''.'hd>! R/ ' ' ,■ rr ', ■■ ■'■ ■.^, '■'*,/■’ ■ . ' SI»P1S— ■ ,- V’ W'iirW'' 58 ^ *' ’’W hW ii viv V’ V, ■ A •' • ><*' « ' * , \ , "A:',; ■•■•^ ’■ . ■ ' : f’ ' ■ i^"4VV Ifl«iWv' » lT-*- '• ■. »,* # . >■ * .■ Jk*! ■ ■» 6 ' ..V ■ .s*V'’Vi •* -); ,‘ . ■ :' '''■ ' ’. 3 . ■ . . .v ■•^".'-sii’iv^i^ j*-'Ai . V *'/■ ’3' ' v'i:' ; ■ '-^-k '■ ■ ■ *1,=^!=^^':' v ' ' ■ : >• ’^'V : '3: " - ■: ' ■ ,,. : i 'fis4 ^ ' " . i::!:,';’ ", N' -Vi , i . '"^ •V-^^,'i ‘3 ;^v'■ . / • V, ',• ..; , . 'i,j ^;V .,ii‘> ':■' ■ ! vf b.'i''., v''. - ' .,i"' • _is".,-. . < j ''■*.■ ••'• "P , . ■> '' 'V- •tl***’" * ' S)" ‘ :'■ '. - '■ ■'■ ■ 111 . ■ .1 ■ I . Aft , ij’ ■' 'V,' >!■ V A I r" ''^;£ ■v . '.. "I . ■ ,. I !?"-ig|a-' >v. ' V Pi, CKfv..v:f^''a\''\. '-: to' . Ij 4 ■' -1 " « ' •'* '■•I. ' il H * * ’ » . ’ . 7 , i«V p 1 ^ ■ ^tr' 3 iT'iS . .'•sa ; '*kV» f’ '* ■' ,• >•■, ■ .. . • '■ ,J • ^ i ■' \ -, ' -.jj ^ • ■7^ * r ' r, , 77 ' V '. ^ ' • '' . rv’"''- ■■' V'.* -'i '" ■ . •■'■'U* , ■ '• vr • - p'\,' “ ', ■,T)*.t' :• • % 1 1 mtaa: /;>, \ ,y..‘ '• A <. ,1 ' - "■ ••r* < .■' ■■. ...M V . ^1 , . I . ■ . M ><■• ■■ f ■■ ' Vj'Tft ■ I • '•' ' ■. • • ■ r ‘ f (ih* . ' /’ !' , » ’••»■ ,'. il.'' '". ’* • ••" ' V kNfc' •' • A. V ISmhI ';'_ ' „ ,/ \ S U L A LE U C O GAS T E R f BHOV/N GANNETJ. Order PELECANIF0RME8 No. 283. Family 8ULIDM. SULA LEUCOGASTER PLOTUS. AUSTRALIAN BROWN GANNET (BOOBY). (Plate 228.)* Pelecantjs PLOTUS Forster, Descr. Anim., ed. Licht., p. 278, 1844; near New Caledonia. Pelecanus plotus Forster, Descr. Anim., ed. Licht., p. 278, 1844. 8ula fusca (not Vieillot) Gould, Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 78, 1846 ; Reichenbach, Synops. Natatores, pi. xxix., fig. 850; pi. 55, figs. 2296-7, 1850; Macgillivray, Narr. Voy. “ Rattlesnake,” Vol. II., App., p. 359, 1852; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. IV., p. 84, 1879 ; Finsch, Ibis 1881, p. 540 ; Tristram, Ibis 1882, p. 144 ; Hamilton, Trans, New Zeal. Inst., Vol. XXI., p. 128, 1889 ; Macgillivray, Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 148, 1914. Dysporus sula Bonaparte, Consp. Gen. Av., Vol. II., p. 164, 1856 (part). Sula fiber (not Linne) Gray, Ibis 1862, p. 250 ; Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II,, p. 507, 1865 ; Gray, Handl. Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. m., p. 126, 1871 (part) ; Masters, Proc, Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. I., p. 64, 1876 ; Ramsay, ih., p. 386, 1877 ; id., ib., Vol. II., p. 203, 1878 ; (?) Walker, Ibis 1892, p. 257. 8ula leucogastra (not Boddaert) Sclater and Salvin, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1878, p. 651 ; Salvadori, Orn. Papua, e Moll., Vol. Ill,, p. 421, 1882; Ramsay, Tab. List Austr. Birds, p, 24, 1888 ; North, Austr. Mus. Cat., no. 12, p, 364, 1890. Sula sula Ogilvie-Grant (not Linne), Cat, Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVI., p. 436, 1898 (part) ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., p. 102, 1899 ; Campbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 988, 1901 ; Tunny, Emu, Vol. I., p. 73, pi. n., 1902; Hartert, Nov. Zool., Vol. XII., p. 206, 1905; Hall, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 102, 1906; North, Austr. Mus. Spec. Cat., no. 1, Vol. Ill,, p. 350, 1912. ^ Siila leucogaster Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral,, p. 38, 1908 ; Campbell and White, Emu, Vol. X., p. 203, 1910 ; Macgillivray, ib., pp. 219, 224, pis. xxvi., xxvii., 1910 ; Broadbent, ib., p. 245, 1910 ; Hill, ib., p. 265, 1911 ; Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 242, 1912. Sula leucogaster rogersi Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I., p. 189, 1913 ; Bedout Island, Mid-west Australia. Sula leucogaster leucogaster Mathews, ib. Hemisula leucogaster plotus Mathews, List Birds Austr., p. 99, 1913. Hemisula leucogaster rogersi Mathews, ib. * The Plate is lettered Svla leucogaster. 231 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. Distribution. North-east and North-west Australia. Adult rrmle. Entire upper-parts, throat, fore-neck, and sides of breast chocolate brown, somewhat darker and more blackish on the primary-quills ; secondaries white at the base of the inner webs ; under wing-coverts chocolate brown except the median series which are white ; breast, abdomen, sides of body, axillaries, and under tail-coverts pure white. Bill and skin yellow, spot in front of the eye blue ; iris silver grey ; feet pale yellow. Total length 710 mm. ; culmen 84, wing 374, tail 200, tarsus 43. Adult female. Similar to the adult male but larger. Immature and young. As described by Dr. Macgillivray in the text. Nest. “ A small hole scratched in sand, sometimes a few pieces of sponge, etc., strewn round ” (J. T. Tunny). Two eggs (J. T. Tunny). Two eggs (Macgillivray). Bluish-white, covered with lime. Axis 53-63 mm., diameter 36-46. Breeding-season. July onwards (Macgillivray) to October (?). The only observations on record in connection with this bird are again due to the investigations of the two Macgillivrays, sixty odd years intervening between the records. The elder Macgillivray’ s account, printed by Gould, reads : “ This species of Booby is generally distributed on the north-east and north coasts of New Holland, but I found it breeding only upon Bramble Key, although I once, on Raine’s Islet, found a solitary egg. The nest is slovenly made, of dried herbage, a foot in diameter, with scarcely any cavity, and contains two eggs, of which in every instance one was clean and the other very dirty. The eggs, which are white, vary considerably in size. The largest measured 2 t¥ inches by ItV ; the smallest 2|| by 1^|, and one of average size, ^2 If inches. Both sexes incubate, and the birds while sitting on their eggs allowed of a very near approach, and before flying ofl disgorged the contents of their stomachs, chiefly a species of Clupea. I need scarcely add that their bite is very severe. Durmg our visit to Darnley Island I observed several tame Boobies among the native villages, generally perched on the canoes hauled up on the beach. These birds were allowed their full liberty, and after fishing in the weirs upon the reefs until they had procured a sufiiciency of food, returned to the huts.” Nothing further appears to have been written in connection with these birds until Dr. Macgillivray made a trip to the same ground as the elder Macgillivray had visited. In the meanwhile Tunny had examined a colony on Bedout Island, Mid-west Australia, and collected some specimens, but gave no account of the habits of the birds. The younger Macgillivray’ s observations are given herewith in full : Sula leucogaster Macgillivray, Emu^ Vol. X., p. 223, 1910 : “ We sight many Brown Gannets, and when we near the most easterly of the banks 232 AUSTRALIAN BROWN GANNET (BOOBY). (No. 3, Ashmore Sandbanks, Great Barrier Reef), we notice a number of these birds, and decide to land, and also to anchor for the night, the wind and tide making it impossible for us to reach the shelter of the Barrier. We have a large escort of Gannets by the time we anchor. On landing, most of the top of the bank is seen to be occupied by Brown Gannets. Most of these rise as we approach, leaving about 30 sitting birds. These permit of a close approach before leaving their nests — as well, too, for no sooner does a bird quit its nest than a Gull seizes an egg and makes off with it. As usual they are constantly on the watch to steal other birds’ eggs in all the rookeries visited by us. There are about 50 nests, 30 of which contain two eggs each and the rest one — ^mostly incomplete clutches or reduced by the Gulls. Numbers of the nests are just being scraped out. The nests are merely a depression scraped in the sand, some hollows having bits of straw, stick, coral or shell gathered round them ; dimensions : 1 foot in diameter and 4 inches in depth. This rookery has not long been occupied, as the eggs are all either fresh or at an early stage of incubation. This species is also nesting in smaller numbers on No. 2 Sandbank. . . . We discern a cloud of sea-birds over the island (Raine Island) and under an escort of Brown {Sula leucogaster), Red-legged {Sula piscatrix), and Masked Gannets (Sula cyanops), we soon sight the island itself. We are puzzled at first with the Red-legged Gannet, as there are more immature than mature birds flying, and the difference in colouring is considerable. Nearing the anchorage at the north-west corner, we are surrounded by a vast number of Gannets (mature and immature), Frigate-Birds, Noddies, Sooty and Brown-winged Terns and Gulls. . . . When we land the birds rise in a dense cloud until the air is full of them and still there seem to be thousands of old and young birds remaining on the ground. . . . Fully nine-tenths of the nesting birds are Brown Gannets, which are all over the island, some sitting on either fresh or incubating eggs, small naked young or young in down, or feeding nearly fully-fledged birds, while many are just starting to scoop out their nests in the sand, these depressions varying from 8 inches to 12 inches in diameter and 3 or 4 inches m depth, sometimes with sticks, bits of coral, shells, or dirt collected round them. Many are on bare coral rock, or on the pig face flattened down. Most of the nests contain a pair of eggs, there being great variation in the size and shape of the eggs, though the two eggs in any one nest usually match. The young birds are hatched with eyes closed, with only an indication of down on head, back, humeral, femoral, and each pectoral region. The eyes open very soon, and the birds become covered with whitish down at an early stage, the beak and legs being of a pale slatey-grey, much the same colour as the naked skin : the gape also a pale slate colour. They VOL. IV. 233 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. grow almost to fuU size before acquiring any feathers, the first to appear being the primaries, then the scapulars and feathers of head, and secondaries, with the tail-feathers, this first feathering being a brownish-grey. This colour is general on head, back and wings, with dirty-greyish breast, abdomen, and under-surface of wings when they fly. The young birds hatched out often show great disparity in size, one bemg hatched some days later than the other. This usually results in only one surviving, as, in proportion to the number of nests containing a pair of eggs, very few seem to rear more than a single young one. The naked skin on the face of the adult Brown Gannet shows a good deal of variation in colour, some being of a greenish- yellow, others of quite a blue colour.” The following year McLennan again visited Raine Island on account of Dr. MacgiUivray, and the latter gave the results in the EmUf Vol. XIII., p. 148, 1914. “ Mr. McLennan visited Raine Island early in July, 1911, and found this Gannet scattered all over the island, but only eight nests contained two eggs each, several contained one egg, and there were no young birds. Evidently the birds had only started nesting.” On 27th July, 1911, he visited Bramble Cay, of which visit he writes as follows : “ When at Darnley Island we heard that the natives and South Sea Islanders from there and from Murray Island were in the habit of paying weekly visits to Bramble Cay for the purpose of getting eggs and birds for food during the breeding-season, and that they brought them away in boat loads: also that a cutter had set out for Raine Island about the same time as ourselves, but had to put back on account of bad weather, and that three boats had just left Murray Island for Raine Island. At Bramble Cay I found only two nests of the Brown Gannet containing two eggs, and three containing one egg, five nests with one young bird in each, and dozens of nests from which eggs had been taken. I also saw a great pile of skins near a heap of ashes, where the blacks had been having a feast.” I recently separated the West Australian bird, but here suppress it and only recognise the fact that Australian birds differ from Atlantic specimens in the depth of the coloration of the upper surface and in their superior size throughout. The name given by Forster to a specimen killed off New Caledonia is the oldest one available and therefore comes into use. The following account is worthy of reproduction, but the identity of the birds is uncertain : apparently Walker’s S. cyanops is the present species and his S, fiber something else, not as generally synonymized. 234 AUSTRALIAN BROWN GANNET (BOOBY). J. J. Walker, in the Ibis 1892, p. 257, writing on the Bird Life of Adele Island, North-west Australia, recorded : “ On the beach just above the line of the highest tides, and at intervals of a few yards apart, were little communities of two species of Gannets — ^the widely-distributed ‘ Booby,’ Sula fiber Linn., and the fine dark brown and white 8. cyano'ps Sundevall — engaged in incubation. The two species usually kept separate, though occasionally one or two of one kind would be found in a group of the other, apparently not regarded as intruders. Both birds made very similar rude nests of seaweed, about two feet in diameter and not exceeding three or four inches in height, but in many cases the eggs were deposited in a mere slight hollow in the sand, without any attempt at a lining. Two eggs were the usual number laid by each bird, those of the 8. cyanops by lis inch) being as a rule rather larger and more elongate in outline than those of the 8. fiber ^ the average measurement of which was 2-h by inch. Both were of the same greenish-white colour, with a dense white chalky coating. Very many of the nests contained young birds — some hatched only that morning and perfectly naked ; others were half the size of the adults, and densely clothed with pure white down. The behaviour of the two birds, when approached, was strikingly different — the 8. fiber only giving vent to a feeble croak or two, and then scuttling awkwardly off the nest and away out to sea, returning however in a few minutes ; the 8. cyanops, on the other hand, made a fierce resistance, biting savagely at a stick presented to it, and uttering a succession of loud harsh croaks, or rather barks, while the bird had to be fairly shoved off the nest before it would quit its eggs or young. All the time hundreds of the Gamiets, chiefly of the brown species, were on the wing, sailing overhead with the quietness of Owls, and often coming within two or three yards of me as I strolled along the beach.” The bird figured and described is a male, and was collected on Bed out Island, Mid-west Australia, on the 22nd May, 1901. , 235 1 Genus — F E E G A T A . Fregata Daudin, in Hist. Nat. (Buffon) ed. Didot Quadr., Vol. XIV., p. 317, 1802 Type (Lacepede, Tableau Oiseaux, p. 15, 1799, n.n.) Also spelt — Fregatta Stephens, in Shaw’s Gen. Zool., Vol. XIII., pt. i., p. 119, 1826. T achy petes Vieillot, Analyse nouv. Ornith., p. 63, 1816 . . Type Also spelt — Tachypleiis Stephens, in Shaw’s Gen. Zool., Vol. Xni., pt. i., p. 119, 1826. Atagen Gray, List Genera Birds, 2nd ed., p. 101, 1841 . . Type Also spelt — Attagen (nee Kaup.) Ogilvie-Grant, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVI., p. 442, 1895. F. minor. F. minor. F. minor. Large birds with long hooked bills, very long wings, very long forked tails, slender bodies, and very small legs and feet, the toes semi-pahnate, but the hind toe connected with a web. The bill is very long, much longer than the head ; it is very strongly hooked, both mandible tips being downward bent ; the upper mandible is composed of separate pieces recalling that of a procellarian bird ; the culminicorn is broad and flattened, a groove extending its length separating it from the laterals, which are also broad and flattened ; the edges of the mandible are complete, no serration being present. The rami of the lower mandible are straight and deep and enclose an unfeathered tract which develops in the male into a huge gular pouch. The length of the chord of the cuhnen is about twice the length of the middle toe. The nostrils are linear slits placed near the base of the culmen. The wings are very long and pointed, the first primary much the longest. The tail is very long and very deeply forked : it is more than half the length of the wing. The metatarsus is very short and feathered. The toes are comparatively long and thin, and are toti-palmate, but the webs are so deeply incised that semi-palmate would better describe them ; the toes are obscurely scutellate, the middle toe about twice the length of the metatarsus and half the length of the chord of the culmen ; the hind toe is long, not much shorter than the inner, the middle toe being longest, the outer longer than the inner ; the claw of the middle toe is very long and serrated. Though this genus covers the family Fregaiidce, which is placed in the Order Pelecaniformes, mainly on account of the toti-palmate character of the 236 FREGATA. feet, it offers so many peculiarities externally that its association with the other members of the Order has caused much doubt. The investigations of the anatomy of this aberrant group have all been carried out under the prejudice of the toti-palmation of the feet, yet all the investigators have recorded sufficient differences to negative the reference, while confirming it. Many have indicated suggestive relationships with the Procellarii formes, but have been compelled to minimise these and exaggerate the Steganopode affinities. Externally the bill somewhat recalls that of a procellarian bird. Pycraft wrote upon the Steganopodes as a natural group in the Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1898, pp. 82-101, and though he concluded that this was so, a criticism of his statements does not influence me in confirming the conclusion. The following clauses do not seem to be sufficiently explained away: “ In the sternum of the Steganopodes , . . save in Phmthon and Fregata. . . . In Phoethon the carina is of the same form, but continued backwards farther than in any other Steganopod save Fregata. . . . The sternum of Fregata is unique. . . . The pelvis of PhcBthon and of Fregata closely resemble one another, and both differ much from that of any other Steganopod. . . . What is more to the purpose is the fact that there are many points of resemblance between the pelvis of Fregata and that of certain Procellarice, e.g. Bulweria. . . . The tarso-metatarsus in aU save Fregata. . . . Save in PJicBtJion and Fregata (the hypotarsus). . . . All, save Phoethon and Fregata, have lost the vomer.” Beddard had written : “So different are the skull characters of Phmthon from those of the typical Steganopodes that, were it not for Fregata, the bird would have to be ignominiously expelled from the Order. This catastrophe is averted by Fregata, the skull of which, as will have been gathered from the foregoing remarks, serves to link Phcethon with the Cormorants, Gannets and Pelicans.” {P.Z.S. 1897, pp. 292-3.) In the Structure and Classification of Birds 1898, p. 417, Beddard summarised: “There is no doubt that Phcethon is very different from the other genera of the group ; indeed, if it were not for Fregata it would be difficult to avoid removing it altogether.” I can see no relationship whatever between these two. Examination of the bills of downy nestlings of these genera show them to be essentially different, while the feet are extraordinarily dissimilar. The bill of the juvenile Fregata suggests that of a young petrel, but it may be that the resemblance is due to convergence only. The forked tail of Fregata is quite an abnormal feature, however it is regarded. The semi-palmation of the feet is quite as abnormal, while the position of the long hind toe disagrees with that of true Steganopodes. I would here suggest that unprejudiced study of 237 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. juveniles would aid in correctly classifying this group, and would point out that the feather-growth differs essentially in Fregata from that observed in Sula^ Phalacrocorax, etc. I do not consider PJicBthon a true Steganopod. With regard to the genus-name, a few remarks should be made. Fregata of Lacepede has been recently commonly quoted, but it is obvious no writer so using it had previously read the diagnosis given by Lacepede. For in the Tableau Oiseaux, p. 15, we get : “ Deuxieme sous-division. Quatre doigts reunis par une large membrane. Oiseau d’eau latiremes. Bee crochu. Fregatte. Fregata. Le bee long et tres-crochu vers son extremite.” There is absolutely nothing in this at all diagnostic of this genus, while of the general characters the sentence : “Quatre doigts reunis par une large membrane” is quite inapplicable. At this quotation the name can therefore only be considered as a nouien nudum. In the Didot edition of Buffon^s Hist. Nat. Quadrupedes, Vol. XIV., the above was reprinted on p. 317, 1802, by Daudm, who added as the only species : “La Fregate. Fregata aquilus, XVI., 308.” The reference is to the volume of birds, where Buffon gives the history and a figure of La Fregate, and the name can be utilised as of Daudin : the type, however, is Fregata minor Gmelin, not F. aquilus Linne. Key to the Species and Subspecies. A. Uniform black. Males. a. Size large ; wing over 550 mm. ; no white flank patches . . . . , . . . . . . . F. m. listen, h. Size small ; wing over 535 mm. ; white flank patch on each side . . . . . . . . . . .. F. a. tunnyi. c. Size small ; wing under 535 mm. ; white flank patch on each side . . . . . . . . . . .. F. a. ariel. B. Breast white. Females. d. Size large ; wing over 590 mm. ; no light collar at back of neck . . . , . . . . . . F. m. listeri. e. Size small ; wing over 545 mm. ; rusty and white collar at back of neck . . . . . . .. F. a. tunnyi. f. Size small ; wing under 545 mm. ; rusty and white collar at back of neck . . . . . . .. F. a. ariel. Note. — I n the Australian forms the females are easily distinguished by means of the light collar on the hind neck as well as by size. In other races, as Rothschild and Hartert point out, the collar is observed in the female of the large form, but in those cases there is such a discrepancy in size that no confusion is possible. Order PELECANIF0RME8 Family FEEGATIDM. No. 284. FREGATA MINOR LISTERI. GREATER FRIGATE BIRD. (Plate 229.)* Eregata minor LISTERI Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. II., p. 119, 1915; Christmas Island. Attagen aquila (?) Gould, Introd. Birds Austr., 8vo., p. 119, 1848; id., Birds Austr., Vol. I., Introd., p. c, 1848. Tachypetes aquila Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 499, 1865; Masters, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. I., p. 64, 1876. Atagen aquilus Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. II., p. 203, 1878 ; id., Tab. List Austr. Birds, p. 25, 1888. Fregata aquila Ogilvie-Grant, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVI., p. 443, 1898 (part) ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., p. 103, 1899 ; Campbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 989, 1901 ; Vivian, Emu, Vol. IV., p. 55, 1904 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 103, 1906; Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 38, 1908; Barnard, Emu, Vol. XI., p. 20, 1911 (?). Fregata aquila palmerstoni (not Gmelin) Mathews, Nov. ZooL, Vol. XVIII., p. 242, 1912 ; id.. List Birds Austr., p. 100, 1913. Fregata minor listeri Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. II., p. 119, 1915 (Christmas Island). Range. Northern Australia (accidental) ; Victoria (one record, Campbell) ; Christmas Island (breeding). Adult male. General coloration throughout black ; a brownish tinge observed on the under-parts ; the feathers of the head long and narrow and showing a dull blue- green sheen ; the feathers of the back lanceolate and elongate, showing a shiny oil green gloss ; the primaries and rectrices are tinged with a bluish bloom ; inner- most secondaries brownish ; the median wing-coverts dark brown. Coloration of iris, bill, and feet unrecorded. Culmen 96 mm., wing 558, tail 365, middle toe 50. (Type of F. m. listeri collected at Christmas Island by Dr. C. W. Andrews, F.R.S., and now in my collection.) Two birds in the British Museum supposed to have been procured in Queensland agree fairly well and measure — Culmen 100 Wing 550 Tail 420 Middle toe 55 mm. „ 105 „ 565 „ 370 „ 50 * Tha Plate is lettered Fregata palmerstoni. 240 I T FRE OATA PALMERSTON I . (S-dSTERN FRIGATE BIHD ). GREATER FRIGATE BIRD. Adult female. Head and neck all round and all upper-parts dark ; throat ashy ; lower neck, breast, and sides of body pure white ; middle of lower breast, abdomen, and flanks black; the feathers of the head are shorter than in the male and are comparatively dull ; brown collar on back of neck ; the feathers of the back are not conspicuously elongated and lack the brilliant sheen of the lanceolate plumes of the male ; innermost secondaries brownish ; the lesser and median-coverts are brownish with paler margins, forming a somewhat conspicuous bar parallel to the shoulder. Coloration of iris, bill, and feet unrecorded. Culmen 107 mm., wing 599, tail 410, middle toe 54. (The female of F. m. listen collected at Christmas Island by Dr. C. W. Andrews, F.R.S., and now in my collection.) Immature male. Head and neck all round white, pouch showing ; breast with rusty patch ; lower breast black as are sides of body ; centre of abdomen, lower flanks, and vent white ; under tail-coverts black with small white tips ; rest of upper- parts dusky brown and black according to wear ; median wing-coverts brownish forming a narrow bar. Coloration of iris, bill, and feet unrecorded. Culmen 92 mm., wing 570, tail 350, middle toe 49 (New Zealand). (Another collected by J. Macgillivray at Oomaga Island, Torres Straits, agrees but is slightly larger.) Immature, Younger, and Nestling. Undescribed. Nest. Placed in trees or on the ground ; rather bulky, composed of sticks. Eggs. Clutch one, white, covered with creamy hme ; axis 66 to 68 mm., diameter 45 to 46 (Torres Straits). “ It was from the same point— Cape Nelson — ^that a coming ‘ blow ’ from the southward was always heralded some hours before by the appearance of a few Frigate Birds {Fregata aquila) which hovered in the locality, while the wind lasted, and as like mysteriously disappeared. It would be more appropriate to call them ‘ Prophet Birds.’ During a gale they meet the fierce gusts with seeming equanimity, neither wing moving, but with bodies rigid and heads to windward they remain almost stationary, except occasionally a slightly perceptible swaying and momentarily opening and closing of the tail-feathers — a steadying agency probably, besides an aid to ascent — of which a few remarks will be added later. Then with a lightning turn they gracefully sweep at a downward angle with fearful velocity for any given distance with the wind, and then with most consummate ease bring up ‘ all standing ’ poised as before (see fig. 3), the wings meanwhile remaining stiff, but scarcely horizontal, at the time the bird prepares to turn. Such a resistance do they offer to a storm that when sometimes a bird is balanced a short distance overhead one can almost imagine seeing the wind rushing past its form. They have never been observed to approach the water closer than 300 feet, while, on the other hand, they often soar upwards to a considerable height. The evident method these birds adopt to ascend is peculiar, and very interesting to watch at close quarters. For, though the bird itself is practically rigid, except for slight movements — ^particular parts of which have been alluded to — yet those simple actions really explain how the bird rises. Thus, in addition to what has already been stated, they VOL. IV. 241 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. consist of upward and forward motions, as if, while pressing against the wind, advantage is taken when a lull occurs (see fig, 1) ; and, secondly, with head still to windward, allowing itself to fall back a few yards as though for a ‘ breather,’ hut still 'rtiaiifitciining a slight u'pwuTd tendency dufing the progress (see fig. 2). Then repetitions ad. lib. (see diagram).* “ Thek rate of speed when with the wind would be quite 60 to 70 miles an hour, if not more.” f The first appearance of this speeies in Australian literature was when Gould in the Introduction of the Birds of Australia., 8vo., p. 119, 1848, wrote: “ Although I have figured but one, there are evidently two, if not three species of this genus in Australia, but I have not had sufficient opportunities to investigate the subject satisfactorily.” He then added to the Australian Avifauna Attagen aquila (?) In the Table of the Range of the species given on p. 134, he placed an asterisk under Northern Australia as the habitat of this form. In the Handbook^ Vol. II., p. 498-9, 1865, he amplified this by writing under the genus name T achy petes Vieillot : “ Two speeies of this aerial form inhabit Australia, both of which are common in Torres Straits at one or other season of the year. No birds differ more than the members of this genus, for some examples have white and others brown heads, and moreover exhibit many other conflicting differences, both in colour and size. Until the question is settled as to whether there be more than two species of this genus, whieh at present I have no means of determining, I shall refer both the Australian birds to the old T. aquila and T. minor. Then under T. aquila he noted : “I have received numerous skins of a Frigate Bird from Torres Straits which are much larger than the succeeding species {T. minor=iariel), and which may be referable to the Pelecanus aquilus of Linnaeus : but this requires confirmation.” Campbell, in his Nests and Eggs, p. 989, added: “The Frigate Bird . . . is to be found off Northern Australia. However, a few stragglers get into more temperate waters. A specimen was captured at Brighton, Port Phillip, and is now in the National Museum, Melbourne. I am not sure whether the bird has been taken off the New South Wales coast.” The determination of the species and subspecies of the genus Fregata has proved one of the most interesting studies yet made by me in connection with the Australian Avifauna. In the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVI., p. 443 et seq., 1898, Ogilvie-Grant admitted two species, Fregata aquila Linn, and Fregata ariel Gould, the distribution of the * These figures and diagrams are not here reproduced. t Vivian, Emu, Vol. IV., p. 55, 1904. 242 GEEATER FRIGATE BIRD. former being given as “Tropical and Sub-tropical seas” — that of the latter, ‘‘ Tropical parts of the Indian and Pacific Oceans, ranging west to Madagascar and east to the Society Islands.” On p. 442 a Key to the Species is given, showing the differential charac- ters recognised by Ogilvie-Grant, and on pp. 446 and 449 details of the measurements of specimens are given, but of course no discussion of previous workers’ conclusions is attempted. As commonly observed, Ogilvie-Grant did not concern himself with the discrimination of subspecies, and he has been unhesitatingly followed by all recent workers, though this group has been recorded in varied localities by many investigators during the last sixteen years. The most casual examination of the series preserved in the British Museum made certain that the Atlantic Ocean birds differed from those of the Pacific Ocean ; the former place was the type locality of Pelecanus aquilus Linne, so in the Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 242, 1912, I used Fregata aquila palmerstoni Gmelin for the Australian bird, that name having a better claim for usage, as Gmelin had described a Pelecanus palmerstoni from Palmerston Island, Pacific Ocean. In the same place I recognised Fregata ariel Gould with no subspecific forms, Raine Island, North Australia, being the type locality of Gould’s species. In my List of the Birds of Australia, published at the end of 1913, I continued that usage, as I knew I should soon be monographing the group when the correct names would be exactly determined. I, however, added as a synonym of Fregata aquila palmerstoni Gmelin the name Fregata strumosa of Kittlitz, published by Hartert in connection with a Sandwich Island bird. I also wrote Fregata ariel ariel Gould, indicating that I had recognised subspecific forms. The complexity of the subject to be discussed compels me to review the whole of the literature and all the specimens available. As this is the first time such an attempt has been made I will again, as in the case of “ Puffinus assimilis Gould ” go into the literature first, then discuss the specimens and afterwards summarise the results. These wiU probably prove as startling to the readers as they have proved interesting to myself. The first entrance into systematic work of any member of this group appears when Linne included in the Syst. Nat., 10th ed., p. 133, 1758, Pelecanus aquilus. The determination of this is absolutely necessary before any further work can be done, but hereafter follows the only attempt I have seen. Linne’ s description reads : “ Pelecanus aquilus. P. cauda forficata, corpore nigro, capite abdomineque albis. Amoen. Acad. 4, p. . . . 243 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. “ Pelecanus aquilus. Osb. iter. 292. * Habitat in Insula Adscensionis aliisque pelagicis, vitam agens Diomedeee exulis, cui similis.” The additional references are to “ Brown, jam. 483. Laet. amer. 575. Sloan, jam. 1, p. 30. Pet. gaz., t. 45, f. 1 (?). Alb. av. 3, p. 75, t. 80, male.” These are purely of historical interest, as Linne’s species is based on Osbeck’s account and locality. In every probability the only specimen Linne had seen was the one Osbeck brought back. Consequently Osbeck’s account is valuable ; the reference to the Amoen. Acad, was to a paper by Osbeck at that time unpublished. In his Dagbok Ostind. Reise, p. 292, 1757, Osbeck described the specimen procured at Ascension Island, and I give Forster’s Translation, Vol. II., p. 87, 1771, for easy reference: — Pelecanus aquilus : its bill is more than a hand’s breadth long, and is narrow ; the upper jaw is somewhat the longest, with a hook-shaped point ; the cere, which is blue, covers the bill from the eyes to the hook-shaped point ; the mandibles have no such serrated incisions (supplying the place of teeth) as are usually found in sea birds ; the head is covered with short feathers as far as the eyes, which are pretty large ; the tongue is large, almost trifid at the top ; the corner at its bottom is split ; the temples are naked ; the wings consist of three parts and are very long ; of the twenty- two quill-feathers, the first ten are of a considerable length ; the two inner joints contain, besides the coverts, twenty-two secondary feathers ; the outward of the twelve tail-feathers are much longer than the middle ones, which make the tail look like a pair of scissors. The bird is about the size of a goose and is a yard long ; the colour of the whole body, and of the toes, is black, but the head, breast, belly and fore-part of the neck are of a fine white. Its food is fishes, which it takes from others because it is not formed to catch them itself ; the English for this reason call it Man-of-War.” The paragraph preceding this, again quoting from Forster’s translation, is worthy of reproduction : “ The Pelican, with the red bag under its neck, flew up and down, but would never settle. It is the same which, in hieroglyphical descriptions, is used as the emblem of great tenderness towards its young. It lives generally in the great African sandy deserts, where no water is to be met with, but it brings it for many miles in the bag below its throat, and fills the nest of its young ones : whither camels and other animals likewise resort to assuage their thirst. People who have seen it emptying its red water-bag have thought that it ripped up its breast and gave its young ones blood for want of water ; but they were mistaken.” 244 GREATER FRIGATE BIRD. Forster has identified this reference with Pelecanus onocrotalus,'^' but it is obvious that the bird Osbeck observed was the mature male of the immature bird he described as Pelecanus aquilus. The only conclusion possible is that the type locality of Linne’s species must be Ascension Island, and this has been accepted by all workers ; the reason for my emphasis will be seen later. Gmelin, in the SysL Nat., p. 572, 573, added three names thus: Pelecanus minor, leucocephalos and palmerstoni. The definition of the first reads : “ P. cauda forficata: corpore ferrugineo, rostro orbitesque rubris. “ Fregata minor Briss., av. 6, p. 509, n. 7. “ Multum aquilo affinis, gula etiam saccata, at minor, et 2 pedes, 9 pollices modo longus ; pedes sordide lutei.” The other two are simply based on Latham, whose descriptions I append. “ White-headed Fr(igate) P(elican), Gen. Synops. Birds, Vol. III., pt. 2, p. 591, 1785. Size of a large Duch : length near three feet. BfU five inches long ; colom dusky, except at the tip, where it is very pale, nearly white ; both mandibles are hooked : the sides of the head covered with feathers ; the head and fore-part of the neck are white, finishing in a point on the last ; the breast and belly are also white ; except these, the rest of the plumage is brown ; the tail forked ; legs reddish-brown. This is in the Hunterian Museum. . . . Not far different from the above is one mentioned by Osbeck. . . . This he met with at the Isle of Ascension.^^ A similar plumaged bird is described in connection, and Osbeck’s description and notes are extracted from Forster’s translation. p. 592. ‘‘ Palmerston Fr(igate) P(elican) ” is described : “ Length three feet two inches. Bill five inches and a half long, and hooked at the end, as in the Cormorant : colour black ; space round the eyes well feathered ; the upper part of the head, neck and body brown, with a greenish gloss ; the wing-coverts nearest the body dark glossy green ; fore-part of the neck mottled brown and white, the rest of the under-parts white ; vent b|ack ; tail forked; the shafts of all the feathers white; legs dusky black; the middle claw serrated on the inside. “Inhabits the island of Palmerston, in th.Q South Seas. In the collection of Sir Joseph Banks.” In connection with the Lesser Frigate Pelican, Latham (p. 591) wrote : ‘ This has a large red pouch at the chin and throat, as in the former species. It is most likely that mine is the male bird, as others, suspected to be of the opposite sex, have little or no traces of the jugular pouch.” The footnote reads : “ This supposition seems justified from a pair in the Hunteriam, Museum, in both of which the plumage is wholly black : the one 245 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. has a large pouch, the other destitute of it.” This is an important note, and attention wiU be drawn to it later. Gmelin’s Pelecanus minor depends upon Brisson’s Fregata minor, which in its turn is based entirely upon “ Edwards’ Glanur, Part II., p. 209, Chap. XCIX. ; avec une figure exacte, pi. 309.” No locality is given by Brisson, who questions “ C’est peut-etre la femelle de la precedente.” That two or more species were confused was early recognised by voyageurs, but the fact that these early descriptions referred to immature specimens made their separation difficult. In 1848 Gould figured and described in the Birds of Australia a very small species under the name of Fregata ariel. With a craze for lumping and minimising the importance of new discoveries this was immediately suppressed in favor of Gmelin’s Pelecanus minor, though practically nothing in the description is strictly applicable, the bill length “ five inches ” being certainly inapplicable, while the total length is also strongly in disagreement. In Gray’s Handl. Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. m., p. 131, 1871, as a synonym of Atagen aquilus L. appears “ caroliniana Less.” I have not traced Lesson’s usage of this name, but I will show that by deduction Lesson’s name would belong to the small bird. As synonyms of minor Gmel., Gray quotes “ palmerstoni Gm.” and “ ariel Gould.” In the Kat. Vogels. Mus. Senchenh., p. 235, 1891, Hartert described the bird named by Kittlitz Fregata strumosa, regarding it as synonymous with Fregata aquila, while in the synonymy of Fregata ariel, Ogilvie-Grant placed Tachypetes cJiamheyroni Montrouzier. Montrouzier, in the Bull. 86c. Geogr. Franc., Series VI., Vol. XII., 1876, p. 646, 1877, regarding the avifauna of Huon and Surprise Islands, wrote as follows : p. 645. “ La fregate commune {tachypetes aquilus) : une autre f regate 4 plumage brun largement traverse de blanc sur la poitrine, laquelle n’est peut-etre qu’une variete d’dge ou de sexe de la precedente.” p. 646. “ Et enfin une fregate qui est nouveUe pour moi et qui je decris ainsi, sous le nom de tachypetes chamheyroni, s’il y a reellement lieu de la considerer comme nouvelle. Taille de la fregate commune, d’un noir brun, plumes du dessus du dos longues, irisees, a reflets metalliques ; un volumineux jabot place sous la gorge, pouvant se gonfler, d’un rouge de sang, garni a la base de quelques plumes rares, courtes, distantes et de tuberculosites analogues a celles de la tete du dindon.” I see nothing whatever in this description that would cause the association of Montrouzier’s name with the small bird in preference to the large and have italicised the line where Montrouzier gives the size of his new species as the same as that of the common one. The description applies 246 GREATER FRIGATE BIRD. simply to the fully-plumaged male of the large bird, the white flanks distinctive of the small species being unnoticed. There are no other synonyms, but the views of previous workers need record so that my comments later can be easily understood. As long ago as 1831, Lesson, from personal observation, included in his TraitCf pp. 606-7 : “ La Fregate. Tachypetes aquila Vieill. Gal., pi. 274. PeUcanus aquilus L. Enl. 961. Male. Plumage noir : devant de la gorge nu et d’un rouge fulgide. Des Moluques, du Bresil, de toutes les terres intertropicales. Femelle {Pelecanus leucocephalos L.). Tete, cou et ventre blancs. De Rio- Janeiro, de I’Ascension. Jeune male {Pelecanus palmerstonii Lath.) ? Tete et cou noirs : ventre blanc. Jeune femelle {Pelecamus minor Lath). Tete et cou roux vif : duvet epais et abundant : corps noir. De Timor, des lies Mariannes. Ohserv. On ne pent guere, dans le moment actuel, admettre qu’une espece de fregate, qui varie suivant les sexes et I’age, parce que les moyens de comparison manquent dans les Musees. Cependant nous avons recontre dans les iles Carolines une petit fregate toute noire, de taille moitie moindre que celle de I’espece des cotes du Bresil.” From this extract I deduce that ‘‘ Fregata caroliniana Less.” would have been conferred upon this small species, and therefore would not be a synonym of A. aquilus, as cited by Gray. In the Birds of the U.S. Expl. Exped. 1858, Cassin admitted two species, writing : p. 358. “ T achy petes aquila Linne. Though no specimen of this species is in the collection, it is frequently mentioned by the naturalists attached to the Expedition. This species is that which is found on the shores of the Atlantic Ocean, from the coasts of the Southern United States and of the West Indies, thence throughout the entire extent of South America to Cape Horn. Its further range is yet undetermined, the species which is the subject of our next article having universally but erroneously been regarded as identical with the present bird by modern ornithologists and voyagers. The bird now before us is the largest of the species of this genus, and may readily be distinguished from others by this character, though in general form and in colors there is almost complete similarity. In this bird the primary-quills and feathers of the tail are remarkably wide, and the shafts strong. 247 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. p. 359. “ Tachypetes palmerstoni. The Frigate Pelican of the Pacific. “ Form — Generally similar to Tachypetes aquila, font rather smaller, and with the quills and feathers of the tail comparatively narrow. Wing in. Tail 15| in. Bill from gape to tip of upper mandible 4| in. “ Color. Adult male. Entire plumage black. . . . Female. With a bare space on the throat, but without the gular pouch. Breast white. Other parts of plumage as in the male. Slightly larger than the male (?) “ Young. Head and neck white, strongly tinged with fulvous, especially on the neck in front above the breast. Abdomen white: breast black. Entire upper plumage of the body, the wings and tail, black. Shoulder and some of the coverts of the wings paler and edged with ashy- white. “ This species, which we have no hesitation in concluding to be that indicated by Gmelin and Latham, as above cited, appears to be exclusively an inhabitant of the Pacific Ocean and its islands. In the collection of the Expedition there are numerous specimens according with each other exactly in their specific characters, and readily distinguishable from the well-known species of the Atlantic Coast.” These observations seem to have been ignored but never refuted. In the Ihis 1859, p. 152, G. C. Taylor, having visited an island in Fonseca Bay, Pacific Coast of Honduras, wrote : “ I observed that the Frigate birds were of three different plumages. As there were birds of all three sorts sitting together, and with their nests in the same bushes, I concluded that they were of one and the same species — ^males, females, and immature birds. Some have the head and neck white, the beak white, the feet and legs bluish- white, the belly white and'the wing-coverts greyish-brown. Others have the legs and feet black, and are black aU over, with a greenish metallic tinge on the back. These have a bright scarlet pouch, which they inflate to the size of an ostrich’s egg while on the wing. The boatmen informed me that these were the male birds. Others, probably immature birds, had the head black, the throat white, and the legs and feet pink. All had long, black, forked tails.” Hartert, dealing with birds he himself collected in the Caribbean Sea under the name Fregata aquila {Ibis 1893, p. 308), commented : “Schlegel {Mus. d. Pays-Bas), Oates (B. Brit. Burm.) and others are of opinion that the white-breasted specimens of this species are young birds, but Ridgway {B. N. Amer. and Man. N. Am. B.) has already well described the plumage of the adult female as well as that of the young, which has the whole head white. My male example agrees perfectly with specimens from 248 GREATER FRIGATE BIRD. the Pacific and Madagascar.* The females have much larger bills than the males. My specimens measure : — (J ad. Aruba 3 vii. Culmen 5.2 inches wing 23.6 tail 17. $?ad. do. „ 5.5-5.6 „ „ 23-24.5 „ 15.5. “ * Hartlaub { Vogel. Madagascars, p. 399) mentions only Fregata minor from that island, but examples of both these very distinct species have been recently received by the Tring Museum from Madagascar.” Apparently Ogilvie-Grant independently worked out the differences between Fregata aquila and Fregata ariel, as he does not mention that Ridgway had published the facts previously and does not give a reference to Ridgway’s paper in his synonymy. For three years before the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum was published, Ridgway {Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., Vol. XVIII., p. 525, 1895) had written : “ Fregata aquila minor (Gmelin) ?. Since no specimens were collectedi, and as Dr. Abbott did not distinguish between the two species, it is uncertain whether the Frigate birds observed at Glorioso were this form or F. ariel Gould.” On p. 516 he admitted : “ Fregata ariel Gould, one specimen, lie St. Joseph (Amirantes). “ The name ariel Gould having been quite generally cited as a synonym of minor Gmelin, it is proper that I state here my reasons for reinstating it as a specific name. A reference to Gmelin’ s diagnoses and the descriptions and figures upon which it is based proves beyond question that the name minor belongs to the small intertropical form of F. aquila. The bird under consideration is unquestionably a distinct species from F. aquila, being readily distinguished from the small form to which the name minor belongs by several very positive characters, involving not only differences of coloration but of form and dimensions also. ... “The characters of F. ariel are as follows: ‘Much smaller than F. aquila minor with very much shorter and slenderer bill and smaller feet. Adult male with a transverse patch of white on each flank.’ ” ^ These characters are drawn up from details of Gould’s types supplied to Ridgway by Witmer Stone, which are given. The Amirantes specimen measured, according to Ridgway : “ Wing 20, tail 13, culmen 3.30, middle toe 1.80 inches,” Also, in 1897, Ridgway, dealing with the Birds of the Galapagos Archipelago, reported in the Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., Vol. XIX., thus : “ p. 590. Fregata aquila Linnaeus. “ Range : Intertropical and subtropical seas in general : Galapagos Archipelago. No special locality (Darwin, Kinberg) ; Chatham, Barrington, Tower and Bindloe Islands (Baur and Adams). VOL. IV. 249 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. ‘‘ p. 591. Fregata aquila minor (Gmelin). “Range: Central Pacific and Indian Oceans. Accidental (?) in the Galapagos Archipelago ; Tower Island (Baur and Adams). “ {Attagen ariel Gould. A perfectly distinct species, easily recognised by the white flank patch of the adult male and other perfectly obvious characters.) “ One specimen of this smaller form, an adult male, was obtained at Tower Island, September 3, 1891, by Messrs. Baur and Adams. “ Besides being considerably smaller, this bird differs from the three examples of true F. aquila in coloration, the plumage being much more glossy, and the metallic coloring of the back and scapulars brilliant green mixed with a little purple, instead of just the reverse. “ The lesser wing-coverts also have a large area of dull brownish feathers, running parallel with the anterior border of the wing, there being no trace of such coloration in the three specimens of F. aquila. “ The measurements of this specimen are herewith given, as well as those of three adult males of true F. aquila from the Galapagos and an equal number (the smallest of six) from the Bahamas. ad. (J Tower I. Gal. . . Wing 22.80 tail 14.60 culmen 3.82 mid. toe 2.06. ad. (J Tower I. Gal. >9 25.70 99 18.75 99 4.38 99 2.18. ad. (J Barrington I. Gal. 99 25.51 99 18.80 99 4.38 99 2.15. ad. ^ Barrington I. Gal. 99 24.30 99 18.00 99 4.05 99 2.05. ad. ^ Key Verd, Bahamas 99 23.75 99 18.00 99 4.20 ad. (J Key Verd, Bahamas 99 24.10 99 17.75 99 4.30 99 2.10. ad. cJ Key Verd, Bahamas 99 24.45 99 18.75 99 4.12 99 2.05. “ Whether or not F. aquila minor be worthy of recognition as a separate form from true F. aquila, there can be no question as to the fact that it was upon this form that Gmelin’s Pelecanus minor was based. It is equally certain that the name Attagen ariel Gould, so generally quoted as a synonym of F. minor, does not at all belong to the latter bird, but to a very distinct species inhabiting the seas between Africa and Australia (and doubtless elsewhere). F. ariel is still smaller than F. a. minor, very much more slender, and differs further in several very conspicuous colour-characters, amongst which may be mentioned a large white flank-patch of which there is no trace in either F. aquila or its smaller form.” A couple of years later Rothschild and Hartert gave a Review of the Ornithology of the Galapagos Islands {Nov. Zool., Vol. VI., 1899), and at p. 175 wrote the following under the title Fregata aquila L. : “ Ridgway and Grant have quite correctly accepted the name F. ariel for the small species found in the South Pacific and Indian Oceans, from 250 GEEATER FRIGATE BIRD. Madagascar to Australia and the Society Islands, and recognised F. minor (Pelecanus minor Gmelin) as given to small specimens of the common large species F. aquila (L.). On the other hand Ridgway {lx.) raises the question whether F. aquila minor is worthy of recognition as a separate form from true F. aquila aquila or not. If so, the small form would be an occasional visitor to the Galapagos, while F. aquila aquila would be of regular occurrence according to Ridgway. “ Our material from the Galapagos proves that the small form is resident, and we think it proves also that the large and small form completely intergrade in the same colonies, and therefore they are not separable as subspecies. “ On Culpepper, Wenman, Tower, Gardner and Hood Islands they were found breeding. On Indefatigable, Duncan, Jervis, James, Chatham, Bar- rington, and Albemarle Islands they were found to be common, and they were also seen on Abingdon, Charles, Bindloe, and Narborough Islands. The males vary in the two principal measurements as follows : “(J ad. Culpepper. Bill from gape to tip in a straight line, 116, 112, 110 mm. ; wing 580, 580, 548 mm. ad. Barrington. Bill, as above 125, wing 645 mm. ad. Tower. Bill, as above 130, wing 660 mm. “ $ ad. Culpepper. Bill, as before 135, wing 600, 610 mm. “ $ ad. Wenman. Bill, as before 158, wing 690 mm. “It is evident, and known, that the females are, as a rule, much larger than the males, but the Wenman female is a very large specimen. “ The following note is on the label of this large female : ‘ Wenman Island, $, August 4th, 1897. Length 42.50 in., extent 96 in. Iris dark brown, feet madder red, tarsi paler, bill horn-colour, gular-sac and eyelids indigo blue. This bird is coloured entirely different from anything seen so far.’ We do not find anything extraordinary in these notes, the males only having a red gular-sac, this being blue in the females. The differences stated by Ridgway to exist in coloration, viz., that in the smaller birds the plumage is more glossy and the back brilliant green mixed with purple — instead of the reverse — do not hold good, and are merely of an individual character.” Later, concerning the same avifauna in the same Journal, Vol. IX., 1902, the same authors add under the name Fregata aquila L., p. 405 : “ We have again received very large intermediate and comparatively very small individuals from the Galapagos Islands, and can thus corroborate our former statement that the large and small specimens of the Frigate-bird cannot be separated as two distinct subspecies. The bills of our Galapagos birds measure from 9 to 11 cm., and the wings from 56 to 66 cm. On the other 251 THE BIRDS OP AUSTRALIA. hand, Fregata arid (Gould) must be kept specifically distinct. Dr. Finsch, in a very interesting popular article in the Ornithologische Monatssckrift, 1900, p. 452, declares that his studies have convinced him that there is only one species of Fregata ; but he is entirely mistaken. Either he did not see the difference, or the museums in which he made his studies had no specimens of the small form. The latter is of a much more southerly distribution, except in Borneo, not going as far as the Equator ; it is smaller, the largest specimens just reaching the very smallest exceptional ones of F. aquila ; the MALE HAS ALWAYS A LARGE WHITE PATCH ON EACH FLANK. The females and young of the two do not seem to differ conspicuously in colour. The alleged distinctness of having a white collar (ariel) or not {aquila) is not borne out by our series.” In criticising the above, it must be remembered that the idea of geographical isolation producing peculiar forms of such wide-spread species as the present was scarcely conceived. Secondly, Rothschild and Hartert in 1899 had not the full experience of Ridgway in 1897, and thirdly, their knowledge of the literature was not complete. These apologies must be made, as their statements are generally inaccurate, as will be fully shown later. In the meanwhile, with regard to ariel not going north of the Equator, Ogilvie-Grant had catalogued specimens from Hakodadi and Amoy, while I have noted that Lesson observed a small Frigate-bird at the Caroline Islands. In the Monograph of Christmas Island, Sharpe (p. 42) recorded Fregata aquila, observing : “ According to Mr. Andrews, who shot some breeding birds, the male of the large Frigate-bird is almost entirely black, being white only from the lower breast down to the vent, including the lower flanks and upper-parts of the thighs. The female is black above, and has the throat black, but is white from the lower throat downwards ; the sides of the body black, with a large white patch on the flanks. The young birds have a rusty coloured head and throat.” On p. 44 he included Fregata ariel, writing : “ According to Mr. Andrews, the male is entirely black below, but the female is white on the throat, breast, and sides of body. The centre of the lower breast, abdomen, and lower flanks are black.” Although these colorations disagree with those given in the Catalogue of Birds, the discord appears to have escaped notice up to the present time. With regard to the Galapagos birds, Snodgrass and Heller {Proc. Wash. Acad. Sci., Vol. V., pp. 231-372, 1904) dismiss the present bird thus : “ Fregata aquila Linnaeus. “Range. Intertropical and subtropical seas. Galapagos Islands. Common everywhere about the archipelago : observed at all the islands. 252 GREATER FRIGATE BIRD. Found nesting on Culpepper and Wenman in December, and on Tower in June.” NicoU, in the Ihis 1906, p. 673, from South Trinidad, Atlantic Ocean, admitted Fregata aquila, writing : “ The Great Frigate bird is very common on South Trinidad, but was not breeding at the time of our visit (January).” On p. 691 he added Glorioso, Indian Ocean, as a habitat of Fregata aquila Linnseus, commenting : “ The Large Frigate bird is subject to much variation in size in different parts of the tropical Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans, especially as regards the dimensions of the bill. I can, however, see no other difference.” In Rothschild’s Avifauna of Laysan no discussion was given, as no specimens were at hand, and Fischer in the Bull. U.8. Fish. Comm., Vol. XXIII., pt. m., 1903, made no comment on the same faunal specimens. In the Ibis 1909, p. 326, Dr. P. R. Lowe gave the following interesting account of birds breeding on the Los Hermanos Islands, off Venezuela : “The commonest form of plumage which we noticed was that in which the head, neck, nape, and back were all black, relieved by a beautiful greenish- purple sheen, the throat and thorax being white. Next came a form in which the head, neck, nape, and breast were entirely white, while infinitely the rarest variety was that in which the head and neck were black, but the throat exhibited the conspicuous and remarkable red gular pouch. The first stage consists apparently of both young males and females, the next of older females, and the last of old males. I saw all three varieties incubating. So far as I have been able to observe, it is only the fully adult male that exhibits the extraordinary balloon-shaped pouch, which it can distend at will. I, however, noticed some birds, apparently not /^^%-adult males, with orange gular-sacs, and some, apparently still younger males, with the white throat and breast mottled and streaked with black, in a stage antecedent to the perfectly fuUy- adult male. These appeared to have no distensible gular-sac, or at any rate it was not apparent. The fully-adult males were very shy, and I ^ould not get near enough to take photographs of the few I found sitting on nests. As we reached the top of the island (650 ft.) some of these old males were soaring against the strong trade-wind just above our heads. The vivid red, almost translucent and distended pouch, waggled about in the breeze in a somewhat ludicrous way. It appears to have a constricted and elongated neck which allows it to ‘ flop about ’ in an apparently purposeless manner.” Study of the preceding will show that no effort has been made to fix subspecies in any way, and when Ridgway indicated differences these were inaccurately minimised by Rothschild and Hartert. Further, the discriminak- tion of the Linnean and Gmelinian names is not easy, and somewhat arbitrary 253 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. procedure must be adopted. As above noted, Ascension Island must be accepted as the type locality of Linne’s Pelecanus aquilus. The Ascensicm Island bird, as will hereafter he proven, is specifically distinct from all the birds commonly known under that name. This conclusion necessitates the usage of some other name. Fregata ariel Gray is, as generally admitted, quite a distinct species. Pelecanus minor Gmelin, from unknown locality, is the next name in order. As pointed out, this name is based absolutely on Edwards, and Edwards’ figure is a very accurate one, for his time, of an adult female of the widespread bird. Although Gmelin wrote “2 pedes 9 poUices longus as against “ Pelecanus aquilus 3 pedes longus,” Brisson wrote, ‘ deux pieds neuf pouces neuf lignes,” and this seems to be the French ^uivalent of Edwards’ measurement, which reads : “ The original was a stuffed skin : from bill-point to tail end it measured thirty-six inches,” while he added : “I suppose this may be the female bird, for, since I drew it, I have been told by a gentleman who has made several voyages to the East Indies that the feathers of the males of this species are wholly black.” As no locality whatever is given, an arbitrary type locality must be selected. There is nothing whatever in the description to guide one, so that considering the localities cited by Buff on, I would select Jamaica, and thus fix the name upon the bird breeding in the Caribbean Sea. This will be a fairly accurate disposition, but the unfortunate usage of minor as the species name for the well-known bird which has a range over the whole tropical and subtropical seas in varied subspecific forms cannot be but regretted. In the British Museum there is preserved a good number of these birds from varied localities, and at the Rothschild Museum, Tring, about an equal number of most valuable specimens are available. As always, the Hon. Walter Rothschild has given me free access to this magnificent series, for which the thanks of all working ornithologists, as well as my own, must be tendered. I have often found that the Rothschild Collection complements the British Museum one in a most remarkable way, and this group has provided another striking example, as I there found full series from the Galapagos Islands, Laysan and the Seychelles, localities furnishing few or no specimens in the British Museum Collection. I see little use in recording the number of specimens examined, but as some workers comment upon the lack of such data, I might note that I did not count the skins handled, but I made notes on more than one hundred and fifty and left many immature without comment, so that probably about two hundred and fifty birds have been criticised in this case. 254 GREATER FRIGATE BIRD. Firstly, in the British Museum, there are eight birds from Ascension Island : they provide a complete series from downy young to fully adult, and show that Ascension Island harbours a bird quite different from any elsewhere found. The downy young is white : a young bird showing down still adhering has the head and neck all round and upper-breast pure white; no rust coloration whatever is observed ; two other young ones with wings well grown show exactly the same coloration. Three birds with breeding pouches marked males are all black throughout : they have no white flank-feathers, nor do they show any dull brownish bar on the wing. Another bird, sexed by the same collector as a female, is wholly black, the upper-breast having a brownish tinge, the collar at the back of the neck being not so dark, while there are no lanceolate breeding-plumes on the back nor is there any nuptial pouch. The sexing seems absolutely correct, and consequently in this form the sexes are both wholly black and the young is white-headed. No other locality has yet produced such a peculiar combination, so that this must be regarded as a distinct species. The common widespread species known under the name Fregata aquila undergoes complex plumage changes as follows : Nestling. Pure white down. Next stage. Next. Next. Next. Next. Scapulars and mantle of brown feathers with subterminal bars ; round the eyes, over fore-head and chin naked. Red down comes on the naked part of the head but not on the chin ; secondaries commence as black feathers. Larger, and tail-feathers begin black. The red extends over the top of the head and on to the face ; the scapulars are fully developed and the feathers of the back growing: these are dark brown with lighter tips. Thq tail has rapidly lengthened, being 150 mm. long and showing slight but decided fork, their feathers being black with a blue sheen ; the wing-coverts are more or less greyish- white throughout, the primaries and secondaries long and black with a metallic sheen ; the breast-feathers just beginning to show. Larger and similar to preceding ; the tail, more forked, measures 214 mm. ; the head is darker and the dark breast- feathers show more prominently, but otherwise the under- parts are still covered with down. 255 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. Flying young. Head nearly all white, with a few red feathers remaining ; upper-breast dark rusty red ; brown on sides of body ; abdomen white ; vent black. Immature. The patch of dark rusty red on the upper-chest vanishes and the dark colour goes from sides, but immediately black feathers begin to be seen on the abdomen. These notes are taken from a series in the Rothschild Museum collected by Schauinsland at Laysan. From other localities intervening stages can be seen. The adult male is wholly black, with lanceolate breeding-plumes on the back showing strong metallic gloss. The adult female has the breast white, the throat not fully black and no breeding-plumes, though a metallic sheen is noticeable on some of the back feathers ; she is larger and has no gular pouch. Immature males show this coloration, but are distinguishable by the possession of an orange gular pouch and the presence of lanceolate metallic breeding-plumes. It is also certain that the immature of both sexes breed when in the white-headed stage noted above, but then the male has only a partially developed pouch and scarcely differs from the female save in size. This description is of the bird commonly known as Fregata aquila, but which must now be known as Fregata minor. The following observations show that well-marked subspecies can be recognised, and moreover have elucidated the fact that this bird is no WANDERER, but is very local, rarely going far from its breeding-ground. Consequently, when this fact is fully grasped and long series are procured, very many subspecies wiU be determined. In this place I cannot define many, as series are not available, but the facts prove that the Galapagos Archipelago, as indicated but not proved by Ridgway, harbour two perfectly distinct subspecies. Moreover, these two subspecies are easily separable from the bird breeding at Laysan, geographi- cally the nearest breeding locality. It may be as well to deal with these first, as they appear to be the most interesting. My notes were talcen at the Rothschild Museum before I had seen either Ridgway's account of the Galapagos birds or Rothschild and Harterfs criticism. It is important to emphasize this statement, as I confirm absolutely Ridgway’s conclusions from examination of the material upon which Rothschild and Hartert based their criticism, which I find to be incorrect. Galapagos Archipelago, Barrington Island 604 „ 390 99 51 ,, 105 99 602 ,, 400 99 54 „ 109 603 „ 420 99 50 One in female plumage marked female gives : Culmen 116, wing 613, tail 420, middle toe 64 mm. A black male from Seychelles in the British Museum measures : Culmen 98, wing 594, tail 410, middle toe 53 mm. It is suggested that the female is not much larger than the male from this locality, though none of the birds marked male reaches the solitary adult female in wing-length. An adult black male, collected by Nicolls at Gloriosa, now in the Bri^tish Museum, measures : Culmen 106, wing 606, tail 400, middle toe 55 mm. In the Rothschild Museum two birds from Aldabra measure : ad. Culmen 99 wing 595 tail 392 middle toe 49 mm. $ ad. „ 115 „ 621 „ 430 „ 50 Another bird in the white-headed stage, white underneath to the vent, has the bill rose colour, as in the full breeding-plumage : it is marked female, and measures : Culmen 120, wing 615, tail 395, middle toe 56 mm. 261 THE BIRDS OP AUSTRALIA. In the British Museum, two birds from Aldabra give: ^ ad. Culmen 106 wing 600 tail 400 middle toe 50 mm. ? ad. „ 118 „ 605 „ 400 „ 57 I have a black male from Aldabra, the type of (ildcihTCTisis measuring ; > 624 99 447 99 56 9 ad. y? 121 621 99 415-f 99 52 (J imm. 99 113 >> 604 99 368 -b 99 47 + ^ imm. 99 118 >> 584 99 400 -f 99 55 9 imm. 99 120 619 99 + 99 52 What the solitary black male means I cannot say ; it would seem to be a straggler from some other breeding locality as its measurements disagree so much. Omitting it for the present we get: 9 ad. Culmen 121-128 wing 621-624 tail 415-417 middle toe 52-56 mm. Im. 3 „ 113-118 „ 584-604 „ ? 368-400 „ 47-55 No series appears to be available from any given locality in the West Indies or the Caribbean Sea. The measurements of the birds in the Rothschild Collection, however, give figures disagreeing with those produced above from South Trinidad, but it is almost certain that a large series would show many subspecies to be represented in the Northern area ; at the present time I lump all these together and call them typical Fregata minor. 262 GREATER FRIGATE BIRD. The measurements are of adult black males : Culmen. Wing. Tail. Middle toe. Off Point Gourde 107 635 415 + 55 Do. 110 620 410 55 Barbuda Island, West Indies . . 104 647 430 50 Do. do. 102 603 + 435 52 Marco Island 103 630 390 48 Antigua 102 610 + 445 48 Las Penas, Mexico 111 620 325 + 51 Aruba no 592 + 410 53 Females are much scarcer, and only three adults are available for measurement : Culmen. Wing. Tail. Middle toe. Las Penas, Mexico 114 650 433 53 + Aruba 120 635 + 56 Do. .. .. .. .. 118 595 + 360 + 56 Though this may not be a homogeneous series, a valuable item may be observed from it, viz., the bill in the males never exceeds 112 mm., while the females, though only three, all exceed that measurement. All the males, save the Aruba one, which may not have completed its moult, exceed 600 mm. in wing length, one reaching 647 mm. ; while of the two females which give wing measurements, one reaches 650 mm., the other 635 : the latter, however, may not have completed its moult. Thus the South Trinidad birds show absolutely a longer culmen and a shorter wing length. In the British Museum quite a number of birds have been got together from the West Indian Islands and the Caribbean Sea, but no series whatever from any given locality has yet been collected. A male and female procured together has been considered quite sufficient for every purpose. Adult specimens are available from Jamaica, Belsize coast, Honduras, Florida, Trinidad, Little Cayman Island, Antigua and St. Vincent Islands. The measurements obtained from these absolutely confirm those recorded above, the bills of the males measuring from 103 to 112 mm., the bills of three adult females giving from 116 to 122 mm.; the wings of the males range from 601 to 620, while that of the females go from 625-642 mm. As previously noted, it may be that when breeding series are procured more than one race will be distinguished in these localities, but for the present these can be regarded as representing one form and typify the Gmelinian minor, the diagnostic features of which would be the culmen length in conjunction with the length of the wing. 263 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. My conclusions may be summarised thus : Fbegata aquila (Linne). Pelecanus aquilus Linn^, 8i/st. Nat, 10th ed., p. 133, 1758. Type locality : Ascension Island, Atlantic Ocean. The description given by Linne is based only upon Osbeck, whose description is that of an immature bird. A series in the British Museum shows that the males and females from Ascension Island are both black, and the immature has a white head and neck all round. The measurements of the birds in the British Museum are: d ad. Culmen 94 wing 582 tail 396 middle toe 46 mm. d ad. „ 92.5 „ 566 „ + „ 48 d ad. „ 92 „ 576 „ 384 „ 46 These have prominent red gular pouches. The bird sexed female in the British Museum measures : $ ad. Culmen 105, wing 603, tail 390, middle toe 49 mm. It has no pouch, and the sexing is confirmed by another bird in the Rothschild Museum which is sexed female and measures : $ ad. Culmen 103, wing 584, tail 390, middle toe 47 mm. These birds have a brownish upper-breast and no prominent metallic gloss on the head ; the lack of pouches and the large size make it certain that the sex has been correctly determined. In this connection it is important to observe that Latham recorded a wholly black male and female, as already quoted, and it is very probable these came from Ascension Island. The white-headed young indicate that this breeding locality harbours quite an aberrant Fregata, and so far I have noted no locality whence any similar birds occur. This necessitates the restriction of Fregata aquila to this form with no subspecies. Pelecanus leucocephahs Gmelin, is an absolute synonjon of this name. Fregata minor (Gmelin). This is the name to be used for the world-wide bird commonly known as Fregata aquila (Linne). Pelecanus minor Gmelin was given to Brisson’s description, which is based upon Edwards. The last named described an adult female and he gave full measurements ; its total length was three feet, the same as that of Linne’ s species, but the wing and tail were shorter as the bird was obviously in moult. Many authors have used this name {minor) for the small bird named F. arid by Gray, but every measurement disagrees. There can be no rejection of the name, and unfortunately it has to come into use for the biggest bird. 264 GREATER FRIGATE BIRD. Many subspecies are easily determinable, so that it is necessary to fix the type locality of Gmelin’s species. No locality was given, and from examina- tion of the literature no clue can be gained. I therefore arbitrarily select Jamaica. Examination of many West Indian birds give the general measurements as follows : d ad. Culmen over 100 wing 620-647 tail 390-445 mm. $ ad. „ 114-120 „ 635-650 „ 433 The downy young of this bird moults into a red head and neck, a black breast-band and white belly : the red head and black band vanish, leaving the head and all the under-parts white. The adult female has the head and throat black, upper-parts dark but indistinct rufous collar at the back of the neck ; breast white, belly black, brown bar on the wing. The adult male is all black, the dorsal breeding-plumes glossed with purple and green, the former colour predominating ; the wing-coverts are uniformly dark. In the males the bill is lead-coloured, the eyes brown, the feet black ; the females have dirty light blue biUs, brown eyes and bright red feet. The plumage-changes have been detailed already, and the abstract above is simply given as a guide to the species. The measurements given above are for the subspecies. Fregata minor minor (Gmelin). West Indian Seas. I would remark that probably more than one subspecies wiU be recognised later, when sufficient material is available to trace the annual sequences of plumage. I have already given details of the birds collected at South Trinidad and have noted the aberrant nature of the solitary black male available from that locality. I suggest it is a straggler, and note that there is a breeding colony of these birds at Fernando Noronha. With this exception the^ birds from South Trinidad show that a different subspecies breeds there. The bill of the females of the typical subspecies vary from 114-120, the wings going 635-650 mm. From the southern locality the females have biUs of 128 mm. combined with a wing of 621-624. No specimens have a rusty collar at the back of the neck. I named this subspecies, in the Austral Av. Record, Vol. II., p. 118, 1914: Fregata minor nicolli South Trinidad Island ; South Atlantic Ocean. VOL. IV. 265 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. As type I selected the female collected by NicoU on the 4th January, 1906, measuring : culmen 128 mm., wing 624, tail 447, middle toe 56. NicoU writes : “ Round eye pale red ; sac pinkish ; bill bluish-white ; tarsi and toes pinkish flesh-colour.” I have described and given measurements of birds from the Mascarene Islands which are in the collections of the Rothschild and British Museums. The sexing appears to be inaccurate, so that too much stress cannot be laid upon this. Three Aldabra females measure : Culmen 115 wing 621 tail 430 middle toe 50 mm. „ 118 „ 605 99 400 99 57 „ 120 „ 615 99 395 99 56 A SeycheUes female measures ; Culmen 116, wing 613, tail 420, middle toe 55 mm. Three Aldabra males measure : Culmen 99 wing 595 tail 392 middle toe 49 mm. „ 106 ,, 600 99 400 99 50 104 „ 600 99 400 99 57 Three SeycheUes males measure : Culmen 100 wing 603 tail 390 middle toe 52 mm. „ 101 „ 585 99 395 99 48 „ 98 „ 594 99 410 99 53 One Glorioso male specimen gives : Culmen 106, wing 606, tail 400, middle toe 55 mm. Details of coloration on the labels of the Aldabra birds state : ^ Iris black, feet black, bill black. $ Iris black, feet black, bill lilac. The SeycheUes birds are labeUed as : Ad. Iris black, feet brown, biU brown. Ad. $ Iris white and black, biU and feet rose. Birds in female plumage marked ^ read : Iris brown, biU and feet violet. The white-headed Aldabra female above noted has : Iris white, legs bronze, bill rose. NicoU gives for the Glorioso bird : Iris, bill, tarsi and toes black ; pouch dull brick-red. The males all show oil-green as the predominating sheen on the breeding lanceolate plumes, and the wing-coverts are uniform. 266 GREATER FRIGATE BIRD. The measurements negative the differentiation of more than one subspecific form as inhabiting the Mascarene Islands at present, but that does not mean that such may not later be recognised. I selected as type my Aldabra specimen, collected 23rd July, 1906, and named the subspecies, in the Austral Av. Record, Vol. II., p. 119, 1914: Fregata minor aldabrensis Aldabra ; Seychelles ; Glorioso. The figures show the $’s Culmen 116-120 wing 605-621 tail 395-430 mm. (^’s „ 98-106 „ 594-606 „ 390-410 If the other specimens be accepted as correctly sexed, it would mean that the bill in the male reaches 120 mm., but no increase in the wing-length. The small bird from Christmas Island, Indian Ocean, which Sharpe mis- identified as F. ariel, is a very distinct subspecies. Two males measure : Culmen 96 wing 558 tail 365 middle toe 50 mm. „ 96 „ 530 „ 385 „ 53 While the female measures : Culmen 107, wing 599, tail 410, middle toe 54 mm. The general coloration is the same as is in the preceding. I named this subspecies, in the Austral Av. Record, Vol. II., p. 119, 1914 : Fregata minor listeri Christmas Island, Indian Ocean (breeding). I am using this name for the North Australian bird, as no specimens are available for accurate determination, the supposed Queensland birds measuring : ad. Culmen 100 wing 550 tail 420 middle toe 55 mm. ad. „ 105 „ 565 „ 370 „ 50 These figures agree fairly with the Christmas Island birds as known at present. A black male from Malacca measures : Culmen 93, wing 530+, tail 365+, middle toe 48 mm. This would belong to the same subspecies. The mid-Pacific form cannot be defined, as no series is available, though two names have been given. The only two birds are very young, yet they measure : Culmen 111 wing 590 tail 345 middle toe 55 mm. „ 109 „ 580 „ + „ 48 267 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. These figures indicate that, granted that these might be young females, the subspecies would be larger than the preceding ; if they were males it would be very much larger. Consequently, when this subspecies be determined, it will bear the name Fregata minor palmerstoni (Gmelin) Palmerston Island, Mid-Pacific ; while Montrouzier’s name chamheyroni must be cited as a synonym until series from Huon and Surprise Islands are collected and compared. I do not anticipate that the Laysan bird will be inseparable, though we have no data to decide such a question. I much prefer to accept for that subspecies the name Fregata minor strumosa (Hartert) Sandwich Islands. I have given full details of the plumage-changes of this subspecies and also measurements previously. These show that the measurements differ appreciably from all others taken : the only race with which it might be confused is the preceding, which cannot be determined accurately. It might be here remarked that Cassinis observations with regard to the differences between Tachypetes aquila of the Atlantic and Tachypetes palmerstoni of the Pacific are absolutely confirmed when this Laysan series is contrasted with West Indian birds : the tail-feathers are noticeably narrower in the Pacific bird and the latter are also smaller. I use strumosa of Hartert, as in the Ratal. Vogels Mus. Senckenh., p. 235, 1891, that worker catalogued the type of strumosa Kittlitz, and then in a footnote referred to literature where Kittlitz had described in detail and figured the specimen, observing that so far as he knew the name strumosa had not previously been published. According to the Laws now in force, such introduction, though probably not intended as such, compels acceptance of the name. We have now arrived back at the birds we commenced with — ^the Galapagos forms. It cannot now be denied that two distinct subspecies breed on that Archipelago, a larger and a smaller, the former breeding on the southern islands and the latter on the northern rocks only, Culpepper and Wenman Island. Stragglers may be met with in the islands where they do not breed, but the subspecies are so different that such can be differentiated at once, both by size and coloration. It must be obvious now that they cannot bear the names selected by Ridgway, viz. Fregata aquila and Fregata aquila minor, and as no names have yet been given to any Galapagos birds. 268 GREATER FRIGATE BIRD. I proposed to name the two subspecies, in the Austral Av. Record^ Vol. II., p. 120, 1914 : Fregata minor magnificens Southern Galapagos Islands (breeding) and Fregata minor ridgwayi Northern Galapagos Islands ; Culpepper and Wenman Islands (breeding). The description of the most magnificent form of Fregata minor yet discovered reads: Fregata minor magnificens. The adult male is all black, the head and lanceolate back plumes, which are narrow, having a pure pm*plish-blue metallic gloss, the wing-coverts showing this, the whole being glossy ; the only data provided is : “ Iris brownish-black ” and “ Eyes brown.” From the skin the bill is lead blue and the feet black. The adult female (procured as a wanderer at Wenman Island) is fully plumaged with the data ; “ Iris dark brown ; feet madder red, tarsi paler, bill horn, gular-sac and eyelid indigo blue.” The measurements are : ^ Culmen 106-113 wing 646-660 tail 470-510 middle toe 51-53 mm. ? „ 134 „ 704 „ 528 „ 56 The other subspecies I called Fregata minor ridgwayi, as Ridgway recognised exactly the differences, though all his specimens came from the same island and his only bird of this race was a straggler. This subspecies is much smaller than the other, has broader lanceolate plumes on the back and these are noticeably oily green in metallic sheen, and all show a brownish bar on the wing-coverts. The data given for males is : “ Eyes brown, bill black, tarsus flesh, feet black,” and for female : “ Eyes brown ; bill horn, greenish-purple ; legs and feet flesh-colour, gula^-sac purple ” : the immature female having “ Eyes brown, bill bluish, feet bluish-white.” The measurements are : d Culmen 89-93 wing 550-580 tail 370-400 middle toe 48-50 mm. $ ad. „ 108 „ 600+ „ 405 „ 50 $ imm. „ 105 „ 620 „ 385 „ 50 For comparison the Laysan figures may be cited : (J Culmen 102-110 wing 584-595 tail 375-395 middle toe 50-52 mm. $ „ 111-117 „ 595-597 „ 395 „ 52 This disposes of all the subspecies I can define of Fregata minor at present. 269 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. I have described the large Christmas Island bird as a distinct new species in the Austral Av. Becord, Vol. II., p. 120, 1914, as Fregata andrewsi Christmas Island, Indian Ocean. This species is remarkably distinguished by having in both sexes a white patch on the belly. In addition, however, it is well characterised by the large size of the bill, the measurements reading : ^ Culmen 112.5-115 wing 600-625 tail 375-400 middle toe 54-60 mm. $ „ 127-136 „ 635-643 „ 430-450 „ 60 The adult male has the head-feathers long and narrow, the lanceolate plumes of the back with a reddish-bronze sheen : otherwise all black save the beUy, which is white ; the wing-coverts ashy brown with lighter tips forming a prominent band. From the skin the bill appears to be lead blue, the feet flesh-coloured. The adult female has the head-feathers long and black with a metallic green lustre ; the feathers of the back not elongate and lanceolate but with a distinct coppery sheen ; the wing-coverts ashy with light tips, making a noticeable bar. The head and neck all round black, the chest and all under- parts pure white, the under tail-coverts alone being black. From the skin the bill was deep rose colour and the feet red. The immature appear to have the same coloration and plumage-changes as shown in Fregata minor. Dr. Andrews tells me that Frigate Birds are present aU the year round at Christmas Island. This appears to be the case at every other breeding locality, showing as a matter of fact that these birds are resident and wander to a very slight degree. My conclusions are, therefore, that four species of Frigate Bird exist, viz. : Fregata aquila (Linne). Restricted to Ascension Island. (No subspecies.) Fregata minor (Gmelin). World- wide ; in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans, in the Tropics and Sub- tropics ; with many easily differentiated subspecies. Fregata andrewsi Mathews Confined to Christmas Island Indian Ocean. (No subspecies.) 270 GREATER FRIGATE BIRD. Fregata ARIEL (Gray). Occurring in Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans, but much rarer than Fregata minor (Gmelin), but subspecies are recog- nisable. The immature bird figured and described was collected at sea off New Zealand, in April, 1913, and the adult is the type of listeri. The preceding account was prepared and sent to the printer, when it occurred to me that a short note on the species name would be appreciated by Ornithologists. I therefore exhibited at the meeting of the British Ornithologists’ Club, held on the 9th December, 1914, specimens of three of the forms above mentioned, and these excited so much interest that I was compelled to publish a synopsis of my work in the Austral Avian Record in order to prevent complications. In the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, Vol. XXXV., pp. 36-37, Dec. 29, 1914, appears the following account : “ Mr. Gregory M. Mathews also exhibited three new Frigate-Birds and made the following remarks : ‘ An examination of the birds known as Fregata aquila for my Birds of Australia has shown that three distinct species have been confused under that name. ‘ Pelecanus aquilus Linne, S^st. Nat., 10th ed., p. 133 (1758), is based upon a specimen procured by Osbeck at Ascension Island, which has generally been accepted as the type locality. It has been overlooked, however, that the bird found on Ascension Island is a very different species from that commonly known by the name of Fregata aquila. In the Ascension Island species the male and female are both black, and the immature bird from the downy nestling onwards has a white head and neck. This species appears to be restricted to Ascension Island. ‘ The adult male of the common widespread species is black throughout, but the adult female has the lower breast and sides of the belly white : the rest of the plumage resembles that of the male, but is duller. The downy nestling has the entire head and neck rusty-red. This disappears later, and in the next phase the bird assumes a white head and entirely white under-parts, in which stage the birds sometimes is [s^c] said to breed. The first name certainly applicable to this bird is Pelecanus minor Gmelin {Byst. Nat., p. 572, 1789). In the Austral Avian Record, Vol. II., No. 6, various forms of Fregata are described. Many subspecies are easily recognisable, and these will be fully elaborated in my Birds of Australia.’ ” 271 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. I here reprint what appeared in the Austral Avian Record, Vol. II., No. 6 (pp. 117-121), Dec. 19, 1914, so that the reader can contrast it with the detailed account given above. “ ON THE SPECIES AND SUBSPECIES OF THE GENUS FREGATA, By G. M. Mathews. Two species of Fregata are admitted in the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVI., under the names Fregata aquila and Fregata ariel. No subspecies are recognised, but the most superficial examination showed that such could be determined. Criticism of the British Museum material in order to fix the correct names to be used for the birds occurring in Australia has brought to light much of more than local interest. Details will be given in full in my Birds of Australia, and this preliminary synopsis is here given for the purpose of protecting my work, the first work on the subject for over ten years. The most interesting discovery was that the widely-used name Fregata aquila was inapplicable. This was based on Pelecanus aquilus Linne {Syst. Nat, Ed. X., p. 133, 1758). Linne’s bird was from Ascension Island collected by Osbeck. In the British Museum there is a series from that locality and the male and female are all black with the immature, even in the downy stage, with a white head showing no rust colour. This peculiar bird is confined to Ascension Island and no subspecies are known to me. The Hon. Walter Rothschild generously allowed me to examine his fine collection of these birds in the Tring Museum and I have confirmed my results by means of his material. The common widely-spread species known as Fregata aquila must then bear the name Fregata minor Gmelin* This is very unfortunate, but there is no other conclusion possible. Gmelin (Syst. Nat., p. 572, 1789) described Pelecanus minor, and all the references are derived from the Man-of-War Bird of Edwards’ Gleanings, pi. 309. The figure is a good one of a female and Edwards states this may be so as he has heard the males are all black. No locality is given nor is any determinable from the context. After due consideration I therefore designate Jamaica as the type locality of Gmelin’ s species. A series from South Trinidad Island show that the bird resident there has a longer bill but a shorter wing measurement. Differences in coloration, though apparent, cannot be definitely fixed at the present time. The largest female (females are larger than males) gives culmen 128 mm., wing 624 mm., while the largest measurements from anywhere in the West Indies, 272 GEEATEE FEIGATE BIED. Caribbean Seas, etc,, are in the female, culmen 120 mm., with the wing 650 mm. I name this form Eregata minor nicolli, subsp. n. From the Seychelles, Aldabra, Gloriosa, etc., the islands comprising the Mascarenes, another subspecies can be recognised, the largest measurements of a female being culmen 116 mm., and wing 621 mm. These birds vary somewhat among themselves, so that it may be two or more subspecies will later be recognised from this group. I propose to name this subspecies Fregata minor aldabrensis, subsp., selecting Aldabra as my type locality. From Christmas Island, Indian Ocean, Dr. C. W. Andrews gave me specimens of the two species he found breeding there and which had been identified by Dr. Sharpe as Fregata aquila and Fregata ariel. The former is a distinct new species, hereafter described, while the latter is a form of Fregata mirror. It is very small, however, and the female only measures culmen 107 mm., with wing 599 mm. I name this form Fregata minor listeri, subsp. n. In the South Mid Pacific probably quite a distinct form exists which will bear the name Fregata minor palmerstoni Gmelin. This cannot be accurately defined as no series are available from the type locality of Gmelin’ s Pelecanus 'palmerstoni, but odd specimens from adjacent localities do not exactly agree with birds from other places. Montrouzier’s T achy petes chamheyroni may be here temporarily associated. There is nothing in the description that would make me place Fregata aquikv^ with Fregata ariel, as is done in the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum. , ^ Schauinsland collected a fine series of birds at Laysan for the Horn W. Eothschild, and these are easily distinguished by many points and will bear the name Fregata minor strumosa (Hartert). Eothschild’s beautiful series from the Galapagos Archipelago prove that two very distinct forms live there, as pointed out by Eidgway but disputed by Eothschild and Hartert. Eidgway’ s Fregata aquila is the bird breeding on the Southern Islands, while his Fregata aquila minor is the bird breeding on Culpepper and * Lapsus calami for Tachypetes chamheyroni. VOL. IV. 273 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. Wenman Islands. These are exactly differentiated as Ridgway wrote, and as the names used by Ridgway are inapplicable I name the two forms Fregata minor magnificens, subsp. n. and Fregata minor ridgwayi, subsp. n. The former breeds on Barrington, Indefatigable, Albemarle Islands, etc., and is characterised by its very large size. The largest female (procured as a straggler on Wenman Island) gives culmen 134 mm., wing 704 mm. The latter breeds on Culpepper and Wenman Island (but Ridgway’s bird was obtained as a straggler at Tower Island), and the female gives culmen 108 mm., wing 620 mm. The differences between these two forms in coloration are that F. m. magnificens, in the male, has the breeding plumes on the back with a purple sheen, the feathers very narrow and the wing-coverts uniform black with a purplish sheen. In F. m. ridgwayi the breeding plumes on the back are broader and an oil-green colour prevails, while a brownish band extends along the wing-coverts. The measurements of the two subspecies do not overlap in any way. The larger Christmas Island, Indian Ocean, bird identified by Sharpe as F. aquila is a very distinct species, characterised by the male having the abdomen white and the female being all white underneath from the lower throat to the vent. It is also quite a large bird, the largest female giving the bill 136 mm. and the wing 635 mm. It gives me great pleasure to call this species Fregata andrewsi, sp. n., as it was due to Dr. C. W. Andrews’ gift that this investigation proved so interesting. Fregata ariel is differentiated, as is pointed out in the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, by the male having a white patch on the flanks. It has not such a wide range as Fregata minor, but may even be more local, for one of the results of my researches is the proof that Fregata is practically a sedentary genus. The type locality of Fregata ariel is Raine Island, Torres Straits, and a series from Bedout Island, North-west Australia, shows that the latter bird is noticeably larger, the largest females giving culmen 90 mm. and wing 563 mm., while typical birds never exceed a wing length of 545 mm. I therefore name the Bedout Island form Fregata ariel tunnyi, subsp. n. 274 GREATER FRIGATE BIRD. From the Mascarene group a subspecies can be recognised with a very small biU, the longest female bill being 80 mm., the longest wing 542 mm. I name this subspecies FrEGATA ARIEL IREDALEI, Subsp. U. selecting Alddbra as the type locality. A form has also been noticed in the Atlantic Ocean, but no series are vet available. %/ In the preceding digest not much detail is given, but such details will all be found in my Birds of Australia, the part covering these birds being now in the press.” Though I emphasized in the last sentence that this was only a digest and not much detail was given, my friend, the Hon. W. Rothschild, has furnished a criticism in the Novitates Zoologicce, Vol. XXII., pp. 145-146, February 12, 1915, which I here reprint. “ Vol. XXII., February 12, 1915, pp. 145-146. On the genus Fregata, “ In the Austral Avian Record, Vol. II., No. 6, Mr. Mathews gives a synopsis of the genus Fregata. There are several points in this synopsis which need revision. As Mr. Mathews has stated in the Catalogue of Birds, only two species of the genus are recognised under the names of F. aquila and F. ariel. It is therefore of great importance to science that Mr. Mathews, by his careful study of the group, was enabled to show that there are a number of other species and several subspecies that have been overlooked. I regret much, however, that Mr. Mathews has fallen into a fundamental error in regard to the species which must bear the name minor Gmel. As he quite correctly states, the type of this name is the bird figured on plate 309 of Edwards’ Gleanings ; but he has failed to assign this plate correctly, for by only taking note of the fact that Edwards’ bird was of unknown origin, he arbitrarily fixed the type locality as Jamaica. If he had studied the plate and read the description carefully he could not have failed to see that in Edwards’ bird the throat and foreneck are white, while in all the West Indian birds it is blackish. There is considerable internal evidence in the text, besides the fact of the white throat, which proves the bird received by Edwards to have come from the eastern half of the Indian Ocean, so I must fix as the typical Fregata minor of Gmelin the birds of that area. “ A second error of Mr. Mathews is his placing the larger species found on the Galapagos Islands as a subspecies of F. minor under the name of F. minor ‘ magnificens.'' This bird does not differ from the West Indian 275 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. Frigate Bird except that my unique $ has the largest beak of any recorded Frigate Bird ; my three males do not differ at all from birds killed by Dr. Ernst Hartert in the West Indies. This bird, which appears to occur on both sides of the American continent south of Florida, is quite a distinct species ; the ^ has entirely black wing-coverts and the ? a black throat and fore-neck. Mr. Mathews has made two subspecies of F. ariel Gould to occur in Australia ; as he founds his F, ariel tunnyi on size alone, and it resolves itseK into about 2 mm. difference in the bill and 15 mm. in the wing, this form is untenable. Below I give a key to the species and subspecies of Fregata^ of which the following is a list : F. aquila Linn., Ascension Island. F. andrewsi Math., Christmas Island. F. magnificens Math., Coasts and Islands of America. F. minor minor Gmelin, Eastern Indian Ocean. F. minor aldabrensis Math., Western Indian Ocean. F. minor palmerstoni Gmelin, Laysan, Fanning and other West Pacific Island groups. F. minor ridgwayi Math., Galapagos Islands. F. minor nicolli Math., South Trinidad. F. ariel ariel Gould, Australia. F. ariel iredalei Math., Western Indian Ocean. Males. , f Large white patch on sides of abdomen 9 \ No white patch on sides of abdomen 2 o f Back metallic green F. aquila. \ Back metallic purple F. magnificens. . { Abdomen and vent black 5 I Abdomen and vent white F. andrewsi. « f Wing-band very broad and pale, breast greyish-brown F. minor nicolli. ” I Wing-band narrower and darker brown, breast dark umber-brown F. minor 'palmerstoni. „ f Wing-band pale greyish-brown F. minor ridgwayi. ^ I Wing-band very dark brown 8 /Smaller, wing 530-550 mm F. minor minor. ^ I Larger, wing 580-600 mm F. minor aldabrensis. / Bill larger, 80 mm F. ariel arid. ^ I Bill smaller, 68-70 mm F. ariel iredalei. 276 GREATER FRIGATE BIRD. 1 2 3 4 Females. r Entirely dark below < Breast white [ With distinct white nuchal band f Breast white, abdomen dark [ Breast and abdomen white f Throat and fore-neck black \ Throat and fore-neck greyish-white ( Back black-brown Back paler brown Back metallic F. aquila. 2 6 F. andrewsi. F. magnificens. 4 F. minor ridgwayi. 5 F. minor aldabrensis. r Wing-band pale and broad F. minor nicolli. 5 < Wing-band darker and narrower F. minor jmlmerstoni. [ Wing-band very dark F. minor minor. . f Bill larger, 95 mm F. arid arid. \ Bill smaller, 80 mm F. arid, iredalei. “ In addition to these I have examined a female with black throat and fore-neck and a huge bill from the Gambia, and a male from Cape Verd Islands, in the British Museum, the latter with black wings, but the back is steel black, not metallic green or purple. Further material wiU probably prove these to belong to a new subspecies of magnificens. “ There is also in the British Museum a ^ Frigate Bird from the Hume collection, which is labelled as coming from the Malay Peninsula. The specimen is indistinguishable from the Ascension Island males. It is either a stray bird blown out of its course or the label has been erroneously transferred. Mr. Mathews’ contention that Fregata minor ridgwayi breeds only on Culpepper and Wenman Islands, while magnificens occurs only on the other islands, is disproved by Beck’s photographs (California Academy), which show both species breeding on Hood Island.” This account is of interest for many reasons. Firstly, in view of my repeated assertions that a detailed account would appear in this place, it would have seemed reasonable that criticism should be withheld until after that was published. However, I have now the advantage of emphfi^sizing points I had not made much of, or vice versa, through Mr. Rothschild’s interpellation. Consequently I thank him, as now my own results and his controversial points are brought together, and comparison can more easily be made than had such to have been separately examined. With regard to the type locality of Gmelin’s P. minor, Mr. Rothschild claims that I have made a fundamental error. He does not state that he will enlarge upon his note given above, so that I conclude I have to deal only with what he has written. He states that “ in Edwards’ bird the throat and fore-neck are white, while in all the West Indian birds it is blackish. There is considerable internal evidence in the text, besides the 277 THE BIEDS OF AUSTRALIA. fact of the white throat, which proves the bird received by Edwards to have come from the eastern half of the Indian Ocean.” When I fixed Jamaica, I would emphasize the fact that I had studied Edwards’ plate and letterpress and I failed to see any evidence as to the origin of Edwards’ bird. The only fact is that he received it from Mr. Isaac Romilly. I even searched through Edwards to see if I could find other gifts from the same donor which would lead to a suggestion of locality, but though there were such, none gave any clue whatever. I have written most of the details given by Edwards and now add the rest, so that anyone can judge for themselves the evidence and see if they can find the considerable internal evidence which would justify any type locality save the one I fixed : “ They are found only in warm countries, and are seen in seas at a distance from land. It appears to me to be the same with the Rdbihorcado or Rabojorcado of Willughby : see his account and figure, p. 395, Tab. LXXVII. Petiver has the same figure in his Gazo'phylacium, Tab. LIV. He calls it the Indian Forked-tail. The figures given by these authors (who, by the way, borrowed them from Nieremberg, see his Hist. Nat., p. 221) are very imperfect, and can give no idea of the bird, and what they say of it amounts to no more than that it hath a forked tail. Du Tertre, Hist. Nat. Ins. Antill., has given a description of this bird by the name of La Fregate, with an account of its long flight over the sea from land, and its combats with other seafowls for prey, etc. Ray, in his Synopsis Avium, p. 153-4, has given Du Tertre’s description, etc., part of which is translated into Albin’s History of Birds, Vol. III., p. 75.” Edwards then concludes with the statement I have given previously, that a gentleman who had made several voyages to the East Indies had informed him that the males were black. This last sentence is the only mention of the East Indies, and it certainly refers in no way to the bird Edwards figured. Edwards admits his bird is the same as that of Du Tertre, and therefore I arbitrarily selected Jamaica. Now, as to the value of the white throat which Mr. Rothschild lays stress upon. My own conclusion is that it is not a constant feature but simply a seasonal one ; that is, though some races may have a lighter throat than others, the races of which the adult females have black throats show in immature males and females a whitish throat. The series available are not long enough to show all the plumage changes, but this fact is clearly seen in connection with Aldabra birds. The set in the Rothschild Museum from Seychelles are quite instructive in this respect, as the adult female from Aldabra has a black throat while all the other immature males and females show a light throat. I have stated that 278 GREATER FRIGATE BIRD. Edwards’ figure represented an adult female, but it could be just as well an immature male, and from the Aldabra series would just as certainly occur in the West Indies as in the East Indies. The only conclusion I can foresee is that Mr. Rothschild has produced no evidence to prove a fundamental error in my selection of Jamaica, but rather that he himself has erred in too quickly assuming my inaccuracy. My second error I will quickly plead guilty to. I will at once recognise magnijicma as a distinct species, hut it is cx)nfln€d to the Galapagos Group as far as is yet known. Here, again, my critic has been rather superficial, for he has only casually examined his own series and not thoroughly reviewed it. Had he done so he might have withheld most of his criticism, for he states that the Galapagos rmgnificens does not differ from the West Indian birds. He specially mentions that his three males do not differ at all from birds killed by Dr. Ernst Hartert in the West Indies. The measurements I took of these birds read: Galapagos Culmen 106-113, wing 646-660, tail 470-510, middle toe 51-53 mm. The very largest bird from the West Indies measures : Culmen 104 wing 647 tail 430 middle toe 50 mm. A male procured by Dr. Ernst Hartert at Aruba (the only one I have note of) measured : (S' Culmen 110 wing 592 tail 410 middle toe 53 mm. There is a distinct discrepancy in these measurements which might be (most incorrectly) minimised, but the very long tail of magnificens is characteristic, and in addition the coloration of the back plumes is different. When Ridgway pointed this out, Messrs. Rothschild and Hartert said they could not recognise it, and now Mr. Rothschild is doing the same thing. The West Indian birds have a bronze-purple gloss and not a purple-blue like magnificens. It will be observed that Mr. Rothschild has given his reasons for assigning magnificens specific rank, as “ the ^ has entirely black wing-coverts and the $ a black throat and fore-neck.” He then makes “ aldabrensfs ” a subspecies of minor, the males having a “ wing-band very dark brown.” It is so dark as to be scarcely appreciated in an adult male preserved in the Rothschild Museum. Of the female “ aldabrensis ” he writes : “ throat and fore-neck greyish-white,” though he has a specimen showing a black throat, which would therefore come under magnificens. When more material becomes available and again a study is made, I foresee my conclusions being confirmed and F. magnificens restricted to the Galapagos Islands. Mr. Rothschild’s notes are very interesting, as they afford confirmation of the majority of my conclusions, a result I had not anticipated so quickly. Where Mr. Rothschild differs I consider he has not convinced me. 279 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. save in the case of F. rmgnificens being a distinct species, but then I do not agree with him as to its distribution. Mr. Rothschild has used 'palmerstoni for the Pacific forms, including the Laysan series under that name. This may be done, but the more accurate method would be to use for the Laysan birds the name certainly applicable to them, especially in view of the facts now known and admitted. Mr. Rothschild notes that “ Beck’s photographs (California Academy) show both species breeding on Hood Island (Galapagos).” I have not seen these photographs, which I presume have been published, though Mr. Rothschild does not say so, and, if so, the letterpress should be of interest, as until my investigation no writer, save Ridgway, appears to have recognised two forms from the Archipelago, and according to my notes no birds at all are available from Hood Island. The preceding will show that Mr. Rothschild’s criticisms are valuable, inasmuch as they show how another worker views a question, but they cannot be accepted without further material. I am therefore retaining F. minor listeri in this place, and still continuing my usage of F. minor minor for the West Indian bird. I would, however, reject the identity of the West Indian and Galapagos birds, if the type locality of Gmelin’s P. minor be changed to the East Indies, and would therefore propose that the West Indian form I have described previously be called Fregata minor rothschildi, subsp. n. and cite Aruba as the type locality. This form differs from F. magnificens in its smaller size, conspicuously shorter tail, and different coloration of the breeding-plumes and also of the wing-coverts. I find I did not make a note about the Gambia bird and the Cape Verde bird Mr. Rothschild mentions, though I examined them and concluded that the Cape Verde specimen was the representative of a race which breeds on that group, while the Gambia one could not be classed in view of the West Indian variation. The forms then to be recognised would read : F. aquila (Linne), Ascension Island. F. magnificens Mathews, Galapagos Islands. F. andrewsi Mathews, Christmas Island, Indian Ocean. F. minor minor (Gmelin), West Indies. F. minor nicolli Mathews, South Atlantic Ocean. F. minor aldabrensis Mathews, Western Indian Ocean. F. minor listeri Mathews, Eastern Indian Ocean and North Australia. F. minor ^palmerstoni (Gmelin), South Pacific Ocean. F. minor ridgwayi Mathews, Galapagos Islands. 280 GREATEE FRIGATE BIRD. It will be seen I retain listen, but if Mr. Rothschild’s view be accepted (I can see no reason for doing so) then this would become minor, and rothscJiildi would replace minor, F. minor palmerstoni is here used to cover strumosa Hartert, but that is only a tentative usage. It is very gratifying to find that Mr. Rothschild’s review has left practically unaltered my own conclusions. I would, however, point out that I do not lay as much stress upon the wing coloration as Mr. Rothschild appears to do, especially as the bar is seen to vanish in the West Indian Ocean birds, and I believe it decreases as the bird grows older, being more prominent in the immature. I will deal with his remarks re F. ariel under the next species. Order PELEGANIF0RME8 Family FREGATIDM. No. 285. FREGATA ARIEL ARIEL. EASTERN LESSER FRIGATE BIRD. Atagen ARIEL Gray, Genera Birds, Vol. III., p. 669, pi. 183, 1845 (Jan.) : Raine Island, North Australia. Akigen ariel Gray, Genera Birds, Vol. III., p. 669, pi. 183 (sometimes 185), 1845 ; Gould, Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 72, 1848; Macgillivray, Narr. Voy. “ Rattlesnake,” Vol. II., App., p. 359, 1852. Fregata ariel Reichenbach, Synops. Natat., pi. 57, fig. 375; pi. 64, figs. 2545-6, 1850; Ogilvie-Grant, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVI., p. 447, 1898 (part) ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., p. 103, 1899 ; Campbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 991, 1901 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 103, 1906 ; Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 38, 1908 ; Campbell and White, Emu, Vol. X., p. 204, 1910 ; Macgillivray, ib., pp. 222, 226, pis. xxvi., xxviii., 1910 ; Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 242, 1912 ; North, Austr. Mus. Spec. Cat., no. 1, Vol. III., p. 353, 1912. Tadiypetes minor (not Gmelin) Bonaparte, Consp. Gen. Av., Vol. II., p. 167, 1856; Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 499, 1865 ; Masters, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. I., p. 64, 1876 ; North, Austr. Mus. Cat., no. 12, p. 364, 1890. Fregata minor Schlegel, Mus. Pays-Bas, Vol. VI., Pelec., p. 3, 1863 ; Sclater and Salvin, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1878, p. 650 ; Salvador!, Orn. Papua, e Moll., Vol. III., p. 404, 1882. Atagen minor Gray, Handl, Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. m., p. 131, 1871 ; Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. II., p. 203, 1878 ; id., Tab. List Austr. Birds, p. 25, 1888. Fregata ariel ariel Mathews, List Birds Austr., p. 100, 1913. Tachypetes ariel Macgillivray, Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 148, 1914. Distribution. North-eastern Australia. Adult male. General coloration black, the under-parts with a brownish tinge ; the head with long narrow feathers showing a deep blue sheen, as do also the lanceolate breeding plumes on the back ; wing-coverts miiformly black ; a white patch on each side of the body ; legs and feet black ; bill grey ; skin of throat red ; eyes and eyelids black. Culmen 80 mm., wing 535, tail 270, middle toe 45 (Raine Island). Adult female. Coloration as in next subspecies. Feet red ; eyes red ; the skin of the throat is of a lighter red in the male than in the female. Culmen 88 mm., wing 545 (Raine Island). Immature. Undescribed. 282 EASTERN LESSER FRIGATE BIRD. Immature with down adhering on under-parts. Head, neck and throat deep msty-red ; back brown with lighter tips ; scapulars long, brownish-black ; primaries and primary-coverts, bend of wing inside and out black ; secondary-coverts brown with pale whitish tips ; breast downy, showing black feathers in the form of a band across the lower breast ; abdomen white ; under tail-coverts black ; tail black, long and slightly forked ; bill and feet of a white colour with a shade of blue ; eyes black (Raine Island). Young in down. Pure white ; scapulars and mantle feathers dark brown with lighter tips ; secondaries just sprouting (Raine Island). Nest. “ Placed on the ground and composed of a few sticks collected from shrubs and herbaceous plants ” (Ince). Eggs. “ Clutch one, sometimes two, pure white and not so chalky in appearance as those of the Gannet, and nearly the same shape at both ends ” (Ince). Breeding-season. May, June and July. The life-history of this bird is comparatively unknown. Gould wrote : “ Commander Ince on Raine Island found this bird breeding in colonies at its S.W. corner, the nest being composed of a few small sticks collected from the shrubs and herbaceous plants which alone clothe the island, and placed either on the ground or on the plants a few inches above it. The eggs, which are generally one, but occasionally two in number, are of a pure white, not so chalky in appearance as those of the Gannet, and nearly of the same shape at both ends. Upon one occasion I killed the old birds from a nest that contained a young one ; on visiting the spot I found the young bird removed to another nest, the proprietors of which were feeding it as if it had been their own. I am sure of this fact, because there was no other nest near it containing two young birds. Some of the eggs were quite fresh, while others had been so far sat upon that we could not blow them, and many of the young birds must have been hatched some two or three weeks. We regarded these birds as the Falcons of the sea, for we repeatedly saw them compel the Terns, Boobies and Gannets to disgorge their prey, and then adroitly catch it before it fell to the ground or water. We never saw them settle on the water, but constantly soaring round and round, apparently on the watch for what the smaller birds were bringing home. I have found in their pouch young turtles, cuttle-fish, and small crabs.” The mounted birds in the Sydney Museum Mounted Gallery marked aquila are this species. The only observations made by Australian ornithologists appear to be those following, where, owing to some misunderstanding, little note was made and a valuable opportunity missed of making an historic contribution to our knowledge ; this still remains to be done. “ On the eastern side of the island, near its centre, we come upon the nesting-place of the Frigate-Bird {Fregata arid), where about fifty young 283 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. birds, fully feathered and able, but unwilling to fly, are congregated. They are all at about the same stage of development, and give the idea that the eggs must have been laid about May or June. Two young birds seem to be about each nest, and the nests consist of flat platforms of sticks and grass, raised from 4 to 6 inches above the general level of the ground where they are not placed on some small ledge of rock or other elevation. They are, of course, at this stage trodden down and liberally covered with excreta, but give one the idea that they were formerly about 8 inches in diameter. The young birds in general colour are remarkably like the lighter coloured examples of our Wedge-tailed Eagle (Uroaetus).’^ (Macgillivray, Emu, Vol. X., p. 226, 1910; Raine Island.) (The plate accompanying this note shows adult males only.) p. 228. “ We witness an encounter between a Lesser Crested Tern and a Frigate-Bird. The Tern, uttering shrill cries of alarm, endeavours, by turning and dodging, to elude the buffetings of its pursuer, but at last opens its bill and disgorges two fish, which, by an easy and seemingly effortless double swoop, are in turn caught and instantly swallowed by the Frigate- Bird. We have several times before noticed them pursuing and bullying Terns of different species, usually the larger ones — H. caspia, S. media, and S. hergii. Frigate-Birds are usually to be seen about all the islands, soaring overhead like great long-winged Hawks, until darkness closes in, waiting to rob any Terns flying to roost with a cropful of fish.” An additional note in the Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 148, 1914, by the same writer records : “ Mr. M’Lennan noted six of these birds at Cape Grenville. They headed out to sea when they reached the Cape. At Raine Island on the 9th July, 1911, he notes: ‘Several colonies of Frigate-Birds were seen near the beacon. Went and had a look at the Frigate-Bird colonies. They were eight in number, of from three to thirty nests. I counted 150 nests altogether, several of which contained one egg each : two of these were on the point of hatching. The rest of the nests contained one young bird each, in all stages of plumage, from a couple of days old to birds ready to fly. On the 27th July two birds only were noted at Bramble Cay.’ ” If only these plumages had been carefully noted a good piece of work would have been performed. In the photo given by Macgillivray of “ young birds, fully feathered, and able but unwilling to fly,” only adult males appear. The young are pale red-headed birds, and M’Lennan would see this at the second visit, but no record has been given. As previously indicated, Gray’s---' Fregata ariel is a very distinct species. I have also noted that I had observed subspecies. * It seems to have been overlooked by everyone up to the present that Gray published a beautiful figure of this bird three years before Gould, and, consequently, must be cited as the author of the name. 284 EASTERN LESSER FRIGATE BIRD. The type locality is Raine Island, North-east Australia, and a remarkable fact is the extreme prevalence of black males in collections. The type locality is represented in the British Museum by downy young, immature and adults. The adult males have a maximum wing-length of 635 mm., while females reach 545 mm. In the Rothschild Museum a series is preserved from Bedout Island, which show the following measurements : ^ Culmen 88 wing 523 -f- tail 305-1- middle toe 43 mm. d 94 99 553 „ 365 99 46 ? 89 99 562 „ 350 99 43 ? 90 99 563 „ 350 99 45 $ 99 88 99 543-}- „ 340 99 45 These figures are confirmed by a specimen in my collection : $ Culmen 92, wing 565. Another bird from North-west Coast Australia in the British Museum gives: d Gulmen 88, wing 545, tail 325, middle toe 48. Birds preserved in the Perth Museum, West Australia, have wing- lengths as follows : Point Cloates d 533 and 536 mm. Bedout Island d 525-1- and $ 558 mm. These were measured some years ago, so that at the present time my method of measurement would show larger measurements. Consequently, it is obvious that these birds show a larger measurement than Raine Island birds. Unwilling to indicate a different subspecies from the two sides of Australia, though my experience with the larger birds had proved their sedentary habits, I carefully criticised all the birds from localities east of Torres Straits. No long series are available, so that it is more than probable more subspecies are here confused : the one fact certainly found was that the largest female measured 537 mm. in the wing and the largest male only 526 mm. It was therefore necessary to distinguish this larger Western form. As previously indicated, Rothschild and Hartert wrote that this species did not go much above the Equator, but it was noted in the Caroline Islands by Lesson where it probably breeds. It may be breeding in the Marshall Group, cf. Finsch {Ibis 1880, pp. 329-30). Examples are in the British Museum from Amoy and Hakodadi, unfortunately immature, but it is now certain these came from some locality not far distant ; an immature specimen comes from Luzon, Philippines, and though it has not yet been found breeding there, no doubt can be held that it does so, judging from recorded observations. From the Mascarene Islands I have examined seven birds, which must bear a different subspecific name, as though the wing-measurement is similar to 285 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. that of the typical subspecies, the bill is noticeably smaller. The wings measure: 512, 518, 525 ; ? 525, 542 mm. ; while the bills give ^ 75, 77, 78, 78, 80 ; $ 80, 82 mm. These measurements differ appreciably from those of the Bedout Island birds, while from East of Torres Straits the shortest billed birds gave d 82, $ 83 mm., and these were from the furthest eastern locality and perhaps were representatives of another subspecies distinct from F. arid arid. There is probably another easily-separated subspecies resident in the Atlantic Ocean, but only two immature specimens are yet available. NicoU wrote : “ I saw several examples of this species at South Trinidad, but obtained only one, an adult male, which was shot by Mr. Lindsay from the yacht as she lay off the island.” The specimen in the British Museum is in immature plumage, and as it was obtained in January it is probable that the species breeds there. It cannot be the one Nicoll records {Ibis 1906, p. 673), as he wrote: “ BiU black, pouch bright brick-red; tarsi and toes black.” The immature has the data : “ Bill black with greenish tip ; round eye black ; sac red ; feet black above, yellowish flesh-colour below, a patch of same colour on upper side of each web ” (M. Nicoll). Although the juvenile plumages in this species and F. minor are very similar, the method of change seems different. Thus the immature of the present species has a rust-coloured head as in the other species, but in this the rust colour appears to be evenly retained while the black breast-band vanishes. In F. minor the rust colour on the head vanishes first, a rusty coloured spot remaining on the breast and disappearing with the black breast-band, both disappearing simultaneously, the red perhaps lasting longest. A phase in F. minor in which the bird breeds has the head, neck and all the under-parts white. F. arid shows no such phase as far as can be judged, nothing at all like it being seen, and from observations on the immature available the bird seems to moult from the rusty-red coloured juvenile dress direct into the fully adult plumage. This brings up the question of sea-birds such as the present, Gannets and Albatrosses being subspecific- ally distinguished by their moulting phases. From some localities Fregata minor is represented by black adult males commonly : from others practically none such are available. Observers such as Dr. Percy Lowe state that black males are very scarce and immature birds commonly breed. At the present time, since no attention has been given to such problems, it is impossible to put forward any reliable data from Museum specimens, as it is probable that the majority are selected specimens. As an example, take the Rothschild Collection of Galapagos Fregata minor. Adult black males are common from the Northern Islands, and reference to 286 EASTERN LESSER FRIGATE BIRD. the diary printed in connection I note thirty-six birds were collected at that time. The questions : Were the majority black males ? or Were these specimens the only black males ? are unanswerable at present. When these birds are studied in connection with their habitats, a great deal of interest will be taken in them and probably many unexpected results will be achieved. Dr. C. W. Andrews tells me, from memory — and he has no notes of any occurrence — that the white-headed phase of Fregata minor nor of F. andrewsi certainly did not breed on Christmas Island. Walker writes of birds of F. ariel breeding on Addle Island in immature plumage, but gives no details. I have seen nothing in immature plumage save the rusty-coloured head stage, and none of these have been otherwise reported as breeding and it does not look like a breeding-plumage ; the white-headed phase of F. minor gives that suggestion, and Dr. Lowe considered them as looking like old females. I then would accept the separation of F. ariel into subspecies thus : Fregata ariel ariel (Gray). Raine Island (breeding) ; East Australia. Fregata ariel tunnyi Mathews. Bedout Island (breeding) ; West Australia. Fregata ariel iredalei Mathews. Mascarene Islands. Differentiated by means of its small biU and small size from F. a. tunnyi, its nearest geographical relation, by its much smaller bill and wing, as detailed above. Fregata ariel, subsp. indet. Atlantic Ocean. In the North-west Pacific other races may occur, as birds have been procured at Amoy, Japan, Philippine Islands; the Caroline Islands may be a breeding locality, and possibly also the Marshall Group. I have not altered anything save to make corrections. Mr. Rothschild, in the essay quoted under the preceding species, has suppressed F. a. tunnyi as the difference in size seemed too slight. The details given above will show my own hesitation, and onlj^ the fact of its constancy made me differentiate the West Australian bird. It will be obvious that until more material proves my conclusions incorrect, the only accurate course is the recognition of F. a. tunnyi. and this course I pursue, I do not think, now, that accession of specimen will do otherwise than confirm the distinction I have indicated. 287 Order PELECANIFORMES No. 286. Family FREGATIDM. FREGATA ARIEL TUISTNYI. WESTERN LESSER FRIGATE BIRD. (Plate 230.)* Fregata ARIEL TUNNYi Mathews.. Austral Av. Rec., Vol. II., p. 121, 1914 ; Bedout Island, Mid-west Australia. Fregata ariel Tunny, Emu, Vol. I., p. 73, pi. ii., 1902 ; Hartert, Nov. Zool., Vol. XII., p. 207, 1905 ; Crossman, Emu, Vol. IX., p. 149, 1910. Tachypetes minor Walker, Ibis 1892, p. 259; Carter, Emu, Vol. III., p. 211, 1904. Fregata ariel tunnyi Mathews, Austral Av. Rec., Vol. II., p. 121, 1914. Distribution. Mid- and North-western Australia. Adult male. As in the preceding race but larger. Iris dark brown ; leg black ; bill blue from skin. Culmen 88-94 mm., wing 532-553, tail 365, middle toe 46. Adult female. Differs from the adult male in having the breast and sides of breast buffy- white ; a chestnut collar on the lower hind-neck ; lesser and median upper wing- coverts brown with whitish edges and blackish shaft-streaks, the long scapulars brown at the ends. Bill bluish horn ; iris brown ; eye-rim and gular-sac red ; feet fleshy-red. Total length 800 mm. ; culmen 92, wing 565, tail 335, tarsus 23. Immature. Undescribed. Nestling. Pure white down throughout save round eyes and fore-head, where it is rusty- red ; gullet naked ; patch of brown feathers on back. Iris black ; legs white. “ Bom naked like young Gannets ” (Walker). “ Older birds are covered with white down, with a saddle-shaped band of dark grey feathers across the back and scapular region ” (Walker). Nest. “ Of stalks of grass and Ipomcea, small twigs, etc. The average dimensions of each nest were about one foot in height by a little more in diameter ” (Walker). Eggs. “ A single egg, averaging 21^ X inches, pure white in colour, very thin- shelled, with only a very slight Hmy coating ” (Walker). “ One egg to each nest ” (Tunny). “Measurements 59.7-70.6 X 41-47.7 mm.” (Hartert). Breeding-season. April (Tunny) ; May (Walker). The only field-notes in regard to this form are from Mr. James Walker, who contributed to the Ibis 1892, p. 259, an account of the birds breeding on Adele Island, North-west Island : “ These fine birds had been noticed while we were wading over the flats, soaring high above all the sea-fowl, many of them, * The Plate is lettered Fregata ariel. 288 FREGATA ARIEL. (LESSER FRIGATE BIRD). WESTERN LESSER FRIGATE BIRD. indeed, reduced to mere black specks against the blue sky. Extending for more than half-a-mile along the middle of the island was a narrow strip of open land, almost free from the usual high grass, and covered chiefly with the Ipomcea. Here the nests of the Frigate Birds were to be seen in clusters or bunches of from five to six to as many as twenty together (very rarely singly), and built directly on the ground of stalks of grass and Ipomma, small twigs, etc. The average dimensions of each nest were about one foot in height by a little more in diameter, though frequently the clusters of old nests, which were evidently used for a succession of years, formed masses of very considerable size. As in the case of the Gannets and Cormorants, the hollow in the nests was very slightly defined, and in each was deposited a single egg, averaging x lit inches, pure white in colour, very thin-shelled with only a very slight limy coating. A few of the eggs were newly laid, and easily recognizable by their delicate and beautiful pink tinge, but the great majority were very ‘ hard-set,’ and there were a gi'eat many young birds in the nests. These, when just out of the shell, were quite naked, like the young Gannets, which they then greatly resembled ; when more advanced they were covered with a scanty white down, and had a conspicuous saddle-shaped band of dark grey feathers across the back and scapular region. Nearly all the brooding birds were females, some of them in quite immature dress, but among them were many fine old cocks, conspicuous by their deep green-glossed black plumage and scarlet throat-pouches. A few stray Gannets, usually of the white species [cyanops ?] had taken up their quarters for incubation among the Frigate Birds, but were evidently regarded with but little favour by the legitimate occupants of the ground. The tameness, or rather indifference, of these birds, especially of the females, was most surprising. As one walked among the nests, the sitting birds nearest at hand merely stretched out their necks, snapped their long, slender, hooked bills, and uttered a croak like that of the White Gannet, but very much more feeble; while to obtain the egg it was necessary to push the bird off the nest, when it took wing without apparent difficulty. The birds on the adjoining nests, little more than arm’s length distant, meanwhile took absolutely no notice of the intruder. The young birds, when of any size, were much more vicious than their parents, and energetically resisted any attempt to take them off, croaking and snapping fiercely with their bills.” Mr. Tom Carter has given me the following interesting note : “ Aboriginal name, Wannoo. Although this fine species is abundant in the far North-west, the birds do not seem to usually go south of the North-west Cape. When- ever seen at Point Cloates, it was a sure sign that a hurricane was either then raging in the north or was approaching further south. The natives in my VOL. IV. 289 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. employment always classed them, with other occasional visitant birds, as ‘ Rain brothers.’ In the evening of January 25, 1898, a flock of Frigate Birds was hovering above my house and kitchen at Point Cloates, and I shot two of them for identification. Two hours afterwards a hurricane was raging, and lasted all the night and following day. Some of these birds were observed on other occasions when hurricanes were in the vicinity. They appear to be nocturnal in their habits to a certain extent, because on one occasion when travelling near the North-west Cape, in very threatening weather, my native and self noticed small flocks of these birds in the course of the day, and at night, when camped close to the beach with the moon Just after the full, our attention was attracted by its light being at times temporarily obscured, although the sky was cloudless. Looking upwards we clearly saw several Frigate Birds flying northwards, their shape being unmistakable.” The bird figured and described is a female, the type of F. tunnyi collected on Bedout Island, Mid- west Australia, on the 19th of March, 1901. Genus— S C^OPHiETHON. Sc^OPH^THON Mathews, Austral Avian Record, Vol. II., p. 56, 1913 . . . . . . . . Type S. westralis. Phoenicurus Bonaparte, Comptes Rendus Sci. (Paris), Vol. XLL, p. 1115, 1856 .. .. .. Type S. rubricattda. (Not Phoenicurus Forster 1817.) Labge Phsethontid birds, with short deep, laterally compressed, not hooked, bills, long wings, short tails with extraordinary elongated central pair of tail-feathers, short legs and feet, the four toes connected with a web. The bill is longer than the head, not hooked, but the culmen arched, deep, much laterally compressed, the edges of both mandibles coarsely serrated. The nostrils are open linear slits placed high up near the base of the culmen, the feathering running back from the nostrils to the gape at a very acute angle ; the gape is wide ; the rami of the lower mandible are thick, placed close together, enclosing a very narrow feathered tract, and fusing at two-thirds the length of the mandible ; the culmen chord is twice the length of the metatarsus. The wing is long with the first primary longest. The tail is short, slightly wedge-shaped, composed of sixteen feathers, the central pair very much elongated, the webs very much diminished : this pair are about six times the length of the culmen, while the second pair are less than twice its length, \ The legs are short and thick, the toes short and rough. The metatarsus is less than half the length of the culmen and is covered with hexagonal roughened scutes, the scutes much smaller at the back. The toes are all connected with webs, but are nothing like the feet of any other Steganopod. That is, the middle toe is longest, the outer toe longer than the inner, while the hind toe is very small and i3laced posteriorly. The scaling of the toes consists of regular scutes. In the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVI., 1898, p. 450, the family Phccthontidce is recognised, covering one genus Phoethon. Six species are admitted, no subspecies being indicated. The family had 291 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. been previously divided into genera, and no reasons were given for the rejection of these. Reichenbach, in the Nat. Syst. Vogel, p. vii., 1852, wrote : Tropicophilus Leach cethereus L. Gm. Lepturus Moehr edtvardsi and ffavirostris Brandt. Ph(Ethon L. phoenicurus L. Gm. Bonaparte, in the Comptes Bendus Sci. (Paris), Vol. XLI., p. 1115, 1856, and in the Consp. Oen. Av., Vol. II,, p. 183, 1857, continued this usage of three genera, but corrected the error made by Reichenbach with regard to the type of Phcethon L., correctly designating mthereus Linne as the type, and proposing Phoenicurus for the species phoenicurus L. Gm. Examination of the species convinced me of the propriety of admitting these three generic groups, but criticism of the names showed that none save Phoethon Linne was valid. In the Austral Avian Record, Vol. IT,, 1913, p. 56, I therefore proposed: “ SciEOPH.®THON, gen nov. Differs from Phoethon Linne in its longer wing, stronger legs and feet, shorter tail, though as powerful in the bill. ‘‘ Type, Phoethon ruhricauda westralis Mathews. “ Leptoph.®thon, gen. nov.» Differs from Phoethon Linne in its much smaller size throughout, though having a comparatively longer tail. Type, Phoethon lepturus dorotheae Mathews.” ‘‘ Note. — The Tropic Birds have been referred to the one genus Phoethon, though here again generic ranl^ is due to the differences observed. Phoethon and Scoeophoethon agree somewhat in size, but the latter has discarded the plumage of the former, which is seen in the Juvenile, in favour of a uniform white one ; it has also developed in size. Leptophcethon, on the other hand, has also achieved the beautiful adult-plumage of Scoeophoethon, but is sadly diminished in size. However the evolution has proceeded, the birds are now sufficiently distinct to warrant generic separation.” The synonymy of Scoeophoethon and Leptophcethon is given under these generic names, but as Phoethon Linne does not occur in Australian waters, it might be as well to note that Lepturus Brisson and Tropicophilus Stephens and of Reichenbach are synonyms of the restricted genus Phoethon. Systematically the genus Phoethon has always been a stumbling block, the toti-palmate feet being the great obstacle. On account of this character the genus and family are placed among the Steganopodes, with the other members of which Order it has very little affinity. As already noted under Fregata, most of the workers investigating the anatomy of that genus and also this seem to have been throughout prejudiced by the toti-pahnation of 292 SCiEOPH^THON. the feet. Beddard concluded : “ There is no doubt that Phceton is very different from the other genera of the group ; indeed, if it were not for Fregata it would be difficult to avoid removing it altogether ” {Struct. Classif. Birds, p. 417, 1898). Throughout Beddard shows his conclusions regarding the inter-relationship of the birds to be imperfect, and PhcBthon seems to be the form which does not easily undergo reconciliation. If it has to be included in the Steganopodes through its affinity with Fregata, then its claim must be very slight indeed. Superficially these two genera differ in every detail, even to the feet, and internally as much difference is recorded. Criticising the conclusions of Beddard and Pycraft, the difficulty is to find out the points of similarity : any such I have noticed is common to forms not admitted as Steganopod. The bill of Phcethon is as unlike that of Fregata as a biU could be : in downy nestlings the dissimilarity is as pronounced. Were these two genera at all closely phylogenetically related the juveniles would show an approach in general characters. This is not seen. I suggest that Phoethon is more certainly an aberrant Lariform bird, and that the toti-palmation of the foot is not evidence of relationship with the Steganopod genera Phalacrocorax and Sula, and that Fregata and Phoethon be taken out of the Steganopodes. 293 Key to the Subspecies. A. Larger : general coloration ruddy B. Smaller : general coloration silky-white suffused with pink S. r. novGehoUandim. S. r. westralis. 294 Order PELECAN1F0BME8 No. 287. FamUy PHJSTHONTIDM SCiEOPH^THON RUBRICAUDA NOViEHOLLANDI^. RUDDY TROPIC BIRD. PH-iGTHON NOV^HOLLANDi^ Brandt, Mem. I’Acad. Imp. Sci. St. Petersb., Ser. VI., Vol. V., pt. II., p. 272, 1840 ; Lord Howe Island. New Holland Tropic Bird Latham, Gen. Hist. Birds, Vol. X., p. 448, 1824. Phcethon novcehollandice Brandt, Mem. I’Acad. Imp. Sci. St. Petersb., Ser. VI., Vol. V., pt. II., p. 272, 1840. Phaeton 'phoenicurus Gould, Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 73, 1848 ; Reichenbach, Synops. Natat., pi. 56, figs. 350, 351 ; pi. 64, figs. 2551-2, 1850 ; Macgillivray, Narr. Voy. “Rattlesnake,” Vol. II., App., p. 359, 1852; Pelzeln, Sitzber. z. b. K.K. Akad. Wien., Vol. XLL, p. 331, 1860 ; Gould, Handb. Birds Austr,, Vol. II., p. 501, 1865 ; Etheridge, Austr. Mus. Mem., no. 2, pp. 16, 17, 1889. Phoenicurus ruhricauda Bonaparte, Consp. Gen. Av., Vol. II., p. 183, 1856 (part). Phaeton ruhricauda Gray, Ibis 1862, p. 250 ; Schlegel, Mus. Pays-Bas, Vol. VI., Pelec., p. 44, 1863 (part) ; Gray, Handl, Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. in., p. 125, 1871 ; Tristram, Ibis 1876, p. 266; Ramsay, Proc, Linn, Soc. N.S.W., Vol. II., p, 203, 1878; Buller, Trans. New Zeal. Inst., 1877, Vol. X., p. 219, 1878 ; Layard, Ibis 1878, p. 265 ; id., ih., 1880, p. 233; id., ib., 1882, pp. 542, 544; Buller, Man. Birds New Zeal., p. 97, 1882 ; Crowfoot, Ibis 1885, p. 268 ; Buller, Birds New Zeal., 2nd ed., Vol. II., p. 186, 1888 ; Ramsay, Tab. List Austr. Birds, p. 38, 1888 ; North, Austr. Mus. Mem., no. 2, p. 47, 1889 ; id., Austr. Mus. Cat., no. 12, pp. 362, 378, pi. xix., fig. 1, 1890 ; Cheeseman, Trans. New Zeal. Inst., Vol. XXIII., 1890, p. 223, 1891 ; Sharpe, Hist. Coll. Nat. Hist. Brit. Mus., Vol. II., p. 154, 1906. Phcethon ruhricauda Ogilvie-Grant, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVI., p. 451, 1898 (part) ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., p. 103, 1899 ; Campbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 994, 1901 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 103, 1906 ; Buller, Suppl. Birds New Zeal., Vol. II., p. 53, 1906 ; Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 38, 1908 ; North, Austr. Mus. Spec. Cat., no. 1, Vol. III., p. 356, 1912 ; Macgillivray, Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 148, 1914. Phcethon ruhricauda eruhescens Rothschild, Avif. Laysan, pt. iii., p. 296, 1900 ; Kermadec Islands. Phcethon eruhescens Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 38, 1908 ; Hull, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. XXXIV., p. 672, 1909; Iredale, Emu, Vol. X., p. 10, pis. iii., iv,, 1910. 295 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. Phmthon rubricaudus novcehoUandice Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 243, 1912 ; Iredale, Trans. New Zeal. Inst., Vol. XLV., 1912, p. 86, 1913. ScceophcBthon ruhricauda novoehollandioe Mathews, List Birds Austr., p. 100, 1913. Distribution. [North-eastern Australia ?] Eaine Island ; Lord Howe Island ; Norfolk Island ; Kermadec Islands. Adult male. General colour pinkish-white, a black patch from the angle of the mouth, extending upwards to the eye and behind it ; centre of flank-feathers and secondaries black ; long central tail-feathers red with black shafts. Bill red ; eyes brown; feet light grey and black. Culmen 68mm., wing 347, tail 112, middle feathers not included, tarsus 31 (Lord Howe Island). Adult female. Similar to the adult male. Nestling. Covered with whitish down. Nest. A depression in the sand, placed under a shelving rock. Eggs. Clutch one ; white, covered more at the top end with purplish-black, or covered with purplish-black all over. Axis 68-70 mm. ; diameter 48-49. Breeding-season. July (Raine Island) ; November, December and January (Kermadec, Lord Howe and Norfolk Islands). Though birds from New South Wales are listed in the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVI., as received from the Australian Museum, Sydney — ^North, the ornithologist of that Museum, would not accept the accuracy of the labelling and has met with no record of the bird on the New South Wales coast. Stragglers might arrive from Lord Howe Island, the nearest breeding locality. The species, however, breeds at Raine Island, North Queensland, and as no series are available, these are regarded as referable to the bird found breeding on Lord Howe, Norfolk, and the Kermadec Islands. Quite a litera- ture has been compiled about these latter, and I quote first the two notes relating to the Raine Island bird, both recorded by the Macgillivrays, with an interval of fifty years between them. Gould quoted Macgillivray the elder’s notes thus : “ This Tropic bird was found by us on Raine’s Islet, where, during the month of June, about a dozen were procured. Upon one occasion three were observed performing sweeping flights over and about the island, and soon afterwards one of them alighted. Keeping my eye upon the spot, I ran up and found a male bird in a hole under the low shelving margin of the island bordering the beach, and succeeded in capturing it after a short scuffle, during which it snapped at me with its beak, and uttered a loud, harsh, and oft-repeated croak. It makes no nest, but deposits its two eggs on the bare floor of the hole, and both sexes assist in the task of incubation. It usually returns from sea about noon, soaring high in the air, and wheeling round in circles before alighting. The eggs are blotched and speckled with brownish-red 296 RUDDY TROPIC BIRD. on a pale reddish-grey ground, and are two inches and three-eighths long by one inch four eighths and a half broad. The contents of the stomach consisted of the beaks of cuttle-fish. The only outward sexual difference that I could detect consists in the more decided roseate blush upon the plumage of the male, especially on the back, but this varies slightly in intensity in different individuals of the same sex and fades considerably in a preserved skin.” In the Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 148, 1914, Macgillivray the younger recorded : “ When Dr. Dobbyn and I paid our very brief visit to Raine Island in October, 1910, we must have overlooked the caves in which these birds are in the habit of nesting. Mr. M’Lennan’s notes are as follows : ‘ 9th July, 1911. — Had a look for Tropic-Birds under the ledges of rock and found three nests. The first contained a half-grown young bird, the second one egg, the nest being a shallow depression in the sand 4 feet under the rock ; the third contained one small young bird not long hatched. 10th July, 1911. — Examined all the holes and caves round the edge of the island. The first containing a Tropic-Bird’s nest with one egg was at the back of a fair-sized cave, 20 feet long, 12 feet broad, and 4 feet high. The opening of the cave was 9 feet across by 18 inches high. Another nest under a small ledge of rock contained one small young bird. Did not find any more. Crawling into the caves was not exactly a pleasant game. The air in some of them was very foul, and a match would only just burn in it, and as a rule one or two Pectoral Rails would be found in each. As I crawled into them the Rails would make a dash out, and two of them gave me such a start by striking me in the face that I tried to stick my head through the several feet of coral rock that formed the roof of the cave. Found another nest in a cave in the centre of the island. The bird was sitting on it, but had not yet laid. This bird deserted the nest without laying. 15th July, 1911. — Went round the caves again, and found another Tropic-Bird’s nest containing an egg. Saw one of these birds flying round the island : it had two long tail-feathers. When on the ground these birds cannot walk — ^they can only shuffle along. When on the wing the feet are kept out at a slight angle from the body with fully outspread webs, and are very conspicuous. 27th July, 1911. — ^No Tropic-Birds at Bramble Cay.’ ” The succeeding notes refer to the birds breeding in the Kermadecs, Lord Howe and Norfolk Islands. Crowfoot, in the Ihis 1885, p. 268, and Cheeseman, Trans. New Zeal. Inst., Vol. XXIII., 1890, p. 223, 1891, gave brief notes, mainly descriptions of the eggs. VOL. IV. 297 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. In the Austr. Mus. Mem.y no. 2, on Lord Howe Island, 1889, Etheridge noted (p. 16) : “ The Tropic Birds are represented at Lord Howe by Phaeton phoenicurus Gould, known as the Red-tailed Tropic or Boatswain Bird. We observed them on the west side of Mount Ledgbird and on the seaward precipitous face of the North Ridge. It is a remarkably shy and difficult bird to obtain.” On p. 17 it is included with a footnote : “ Seen, but not captured.” On p. 47 North, under the name Phaeton Tuhricauda, wrote : “ This bird is found breeding during November and December; its single egg is laid under the shelter of projecting ledges of almost inaccessible rocks, on the face of cliffs, and are consequently very difficult to procure,” and he then described the eggs. Hull, in the Proceedings Linn. Soc. N.S.W.y Vol. XXXIV., 1909, p. 672, used the name Phaethon eruhescens, observing: “ This variety of the Tropic Bird is distinguished by a rosy tinge, which fades from the feathers unless kept from the light. It breeds in considerable numbers on the almost inaccessible cliffs of both groups (Lord Howe and Norfolk Islands). On the occasion of my visit to Phillip Island (3rd November, 1908) the birds were commencing to select their nesting-places. From the top of the Peak I looked down a sheer cliff, 900 feet to the ocean, and saw these magnificent birds in hundreds sailing and wheeling about in their stately manner, with the scarlet tail-feathers streaming behind their glossy white bodies, while they filled the air with their cry of ‘Honk, Honk,’ resembling that of the Solan Goose. A few birds were sitting in the crevices in pairs. Mr. Lindsay Buffett informed me that on Phillip Island this bird lays one egg only on a ledge, in a crevice, or on the sand under an overhanging boulder, from the base to the top of the cliff. It is possible to reach some of the eggs by standing up in a boat brought in to the base of the cfiff in very calm weather. Very few birds breed on Nepean Island and the smaller rocky islets. On Lord Howe Island it breeds on the cliffs of the main island. The breeding- season at both groups extends from the end of November to the end of January.” The following notes refer to typical eruhescens of Rothschild, and I would observe that specimens from the Kermadecs are ruddier than from any other locality and can be separated at sight by means of the coloration alone. There is no doubt that the coloration of this form is retained even without the extraordinary precautions necessary to keep the fugitive colour seen in every other subspecies, and it may be that the Kermadec form may be eventually clearly defined as a distinct subspecies. “ The Red-tailed Tropic Bird from the Kermadecs has been previously recorded under the specific title of ruhricauda Bodd. Rothschild has 298 RUDDY TROPIC BIRD. separated a bird under the name eruhescens, and this is the bird that bred on the Kermadec group. A striking characteristic is the bright pink colora- tion of the upper and lower parts, which in rubricauda are snowy white. As the bird floated in the sunshine the pink gleam was very lovely, and to some degree its loveliness compensated for the harsh nature of its cries. The long red tail-feathers seem to be the delight of its life ; it passes most of its time in displaying these to the best advantage to its neighbour, who, in turn, endeavours to surpass it, each accompanying its evolutions with hoarse cries. The bird even moults these feathers one at a time, and is consequently never without one. If, when sitting, it is approached, and both tail-feathers are pulled out, it will sulk until the feathers have grown. It is a most erratic breeder, but I was unable to observe the time of incubation. On 4th January eggs were fresh as weU as hard-set, whilst one young one was already hatched. A young bird, fuUy feathered, was picked up on the beach the first week of April, and then in the last week fresh eggs were seen. I do not think the young would have been reared even if they were hatched out of these eggs. No birds were noted during June or July, but the beginning of August once more saw them back in their stations. The birds nested on grassy ledges on the sea-cliffs all round the coast. The down of the young varied from pale dove-grey to pure white.” (Iredale, Emu, Vol. X., p. 10, 1910.) Later, using the name Phcethon rubricauda novmhollandimf Iredale commented ; “ The subspecies is well differentiated by its larger size and brighter coloration.” The first record of this species as Australian appears to be when Latham m the General History of Birds, Vol. X., p. 448, 1824, described the New Holland Tropic Bird. “ New Holland Tropic Bird. “ In a collection of drawings from New Holland is a black-biUed one, said to be a young Tropic Bird, but without any elongated tail-feathers: length to the end of the tail eighteen inches. This corresponds with our second as to plumage, but differs in having the legs yellow instead of black, and no markings of black whatever on the thighs or under-parts, and the inner coverts of the wings only spotted with black, but the quills have a sagittated dash of black ; at the end of each is a streak of black, continued from the black web ; the tail-feathers are also crossed with three or four bars of black. A specimen of this last has not yet been seen here, but from every appearance it is most probably a distinct species.” To this description Brandt gave the name Phcethon novcehollandioe. 299 t THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. This description is of a young bird, and when Sharpe investigated the WatHng Drawings {Hist. Coll. Nat. Hist. Brit. Mus., Vol. II., 1906) on p. 154, he wrote : “ No. 294. [Young Tropic-bird.] New Holland Tropic Bird, Lath., Gen. Hist. R., X., p. 448. Phaeton melanorhynchos Stephens, Gen. Zoql., XII., pt. i., p. 127. Ph(Bton ruhricauda (Bodd.) Grant, Cat. R., XXVI., p. 451. Watling says : ‘ From the extremity of the bill to the tail is eighteen inches.’ No. 295. Red-tailed Tropic-bird, Lath., Gen. Syn., VoL HI., pt. 2, p. 614, pi. cv. Phaeton ruhricauda (Bodd.) Grant, Gat. R., Vol. XXVI., p. 451. Watling says : ‘ This bird is from the tip of the biU to the rump eighteen inches, and from the rump to the end of the tail-feathers eighteen inches.’ ” The synonymy quoted by Sharpe with regard to No. 294 is not correct, as Phaeton melanorhynchos was not first proposed by Stephens but by Gmelin, and the name was not given to the New Holland Tropic Bird of Latham, but to the Black-billed Tropic Bird of the same author. That was not figured by Watling, as it came from Turtle and Palmerston Islands and will be later on noticed. The Watling figures were all of Australian birds, and as Brandt gave a name Phcethon novcehollandice to Latham’s description that name must come into use if none earlier be available. Rothschild’s subspecific name eruhescens had been used for some years, but I recognised that Brandt’s name should supersede it, and therefore in the Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 243, 1912, I reinstated Brandt’s name for this form giving as reasons : “ Note. — This name was given to the bird described by Latham as the ‘ New Holland Tropic Bird ’ in the Gen. Synop. Birds y Vol. X., p. 448, no. 4. The drawing there referred to is one of the Watling Drawings in the British Museum, and is obviously the young of this species. The next drawing is a splendid one of this species, and the artist carefully noted that the former was the young of the latter. As Watling included many Norfolk Island and Lord Howe Island birds in his drawings, and was certainly at these islands, there can be little doubt that he collected the birds he drew. I have therefore selected Lord Howe Island as the typical locality. Rothschild’s name must become a synonym.” The history of Rothschild’s name is as follows : In the Avifauna of Laysan, Vol. III., pp. 294-296, that worker gave detailed measurements of specimens of the Red-tailed Tropic Bird from the 300 RUDDY TROPIC BIRD. Kermadec Islands, Pacific Ocean, Niihau, Mauritius, and Christinas Island, Indian Ocean, writing ; “ Comparing my series of Red-tailed Phaethons from various localities, I find them to belong to two well-marked forms. While my series from Laysan and Niihau, and two caught in the Pacific Ocean at lat. 21° 10' N., long 115°, belong to a smaller form, with narrower and slenderer beak, shorter wings, and with a very slight rosy tinge, the birds from the Kermadec group, Norfolk and Lord Howe’s Islands — ^in short from the islands to the north of New Zealand — are larger, with a thicker, stronger and longer bill, and have a very pronounced rosy red tinge in their plumage, especially on the wings. This beautiful red tint is so strong, that even in skins which are about four or five years older than those recently collected by Schauinsland this colour is much stronger. “ The measurements given of specimens, no sexes stated, show the following variation : Kermadec Islands . . BiU 75-87 wing 330-360 mm, Pacific Ocean 78-87 99 330 Laysan 70-77 99 305-325 Niihau 99 70-80 99 318-320 “ The specimens in the British Museum from Mauritius and Round Island, near Mauritius, are not nearly as reddish as those from the Kermadec Islands, and their measurements are : bill 76-80, wing 320-336 mm. “ These birds belong therefore clearly to the typical P. ruhricauda. The specimens from Norfolk Island in the British Museum agree with those from the Kermadec Islands, but the skins are not good. Those from Christmas Island (Indian Ocean) are rather reddish and measure : bill 73-75.5, wing 320-341 mm. They seem thus to be somewhat intermediate between the smaller and whiter and the larger and more reddish form, but a larger series must be studied to confirm the impression. In any case there are two distinct subspecies — one the typical P. rubricauda, the other, PhcBthon ruhricavda eruhescens, subsp. nov., differs from P. ruhricauda in being l^ger, with stronger bill, and in having a more reddish plumage, “ Hab. : Kermadec, Norfolk, Lord Howe’s Islands.” Rothschild then observed that two names quoted in the synonymy were of doubtful reference, viz., P. melanorliyncTios Gmelin, suggesting this might be young of either P. oethereus or ruhricauda, and P. novochollandice Brandt, writing : “ This refers also to a young Phoethon, and can only be quoted with a big query under the head of one of the known species.” I have shown this must supersede Rothschild’s P. r. eruhescens and would now deal with GmeHn’s Phmton melanorhynclios {Syst. Nat, p. 582, 301 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 1789) ; this is based solely upon the Black-billed Tropic Bird of Latham, Syn. III., 2, p. 619, n. 2, which is thus described : “ This is in size smaller than any of the former ; length nineteen inches and a half. Bill three inches long, greatly compressed on the sides, and black ; the plumage on the upper part of the body and wings interruptedly striated black and white ; before the eye a large crescent of black ; behind it a streak of the same ; the fore-head and all the under-parts of the body pure white ; the quiUs and tail marked as the upper-parts, but the ends of the first white, and most of the feathers of the last marked with dusky black at the tips ; sides over the thighs striated black and white ; legs black. This was found at Turtle and Palmerston Islands, in the South Seas, and is in the possession of Sir Joseph Banks.” Under the next species, the Red-tailed Tropic Bird, Latham wrote (p. 621) : “ This species of Tropic Bird has been met with in several places of the South Seas ; very common at Palmerston and Turtle IslandsP This fixes the identity of Phoeton melanorJiynchos Gmelin as P. ruhricauda Boddaert, and P. mihereus Linne are apparently antagonistic and are never found together in the same breeding locality. Consequently P. melanorhynchos refers absolutely to the immature of P. ruhricauda. The name is older and would supersede P. novoehollandioe unless it were referable to another subspecies. We have no series from Turtle or Palmerston Islands, but specimens from the Society Islands, the nearest locality geographically, do not show the rosy red of the Kermadec birds and consequently the name, hke Pelecanus palmerstoni previously treated of, must be regarded as referring to an undefined subspecies until series are procured. It will have been noticed that Rothschild treated Laysan birds as typical P. ruhricauda^ and wrote of the Mauritius specimens as : “ These birds belong therefore clearly to the typical P. ruhricauda."*^ As a matter of fact, Mauritius is the type locality of P. ruhricauda^ and all comparisons must be based upon that fact. In the Austral Avian Record^ Vol. I., p. 88, 1912, I separated Phcethon ruhricauda westralis, subsp. nov., as differing from P. r. ruhricauda in its longer wing ; it also agreed in size with my specimens of P. r. eruhescens {novcehollandioe), but differed in lacking the depth of rose coloration apparent in those birds. My birds came from Rottnest Island, West Australia ; I would associate with them the Christmas Island (Indian Ocean) birds, as they fairly agree with the series available. My own criticism of the British Museum specimens shows that the bill of the Mauritius bird is practically the same as that of the Kermadec form, though the wing is noticeably shorter. 302 RUDDY TROPIC BIRD. The West Australian and Christmas Island (Indian Ocean) birds have rather shorter bills though longer wings, while the coloration separates them from the Kermadec birds, which are still larger. Society Island birds differ in coloration from those of the Kermadecs, while from Rothschild’s own data it is obvious that Laysan birds differ very appreciably in size and coloration from those of the Kermadecs and cannot be called P. r. mhricauda^ but are nameless. Bonin Island birds have a very short biU, 56 to 59 mm. ; the plumage is whiter than Kermadec Island birds. I therefore would recognise Sc.®OPH^THON RUBRICAUDA RUBRICATJDA Boddaert. Mauritius ; Assumption Island. Sc.a:OPHJETHON RUBRICATJDA WESTRALIS MatheWS. Rottnest Island, West Australia ; Christmas Island, Indian Ocean. With a rosier coloration than the preceding ; the biU rather smaller and the wing longer. Sc^OPHiETHON RUBRICAUDA NOV.®HOLLANDIjE Brandt. Kermadec Islands ; Norfolk Island ; Lord Howe’s Island ; Raine Island ; Torres Straits. With a deep rose coloration which separates this form at sight : the bill agreeing closely with that of the typical subspecies in size, but the wing noticeably longer. P. T. eruhescens Rothschild is a synonym. Sc.aSOPH^THON RUBRICAUDA MELANORHYNCHUS Gmelin. Turtle and Palmerston Islands, Pacific Ocean ; Society Islands. This subspecies cannot yet be accurately defined, no topotypical examples being available ; the specimens from the Society Islands, the nearest locality, agree in size with the preceding subspecies, but differ at sight in lacking the deep rose coloration. SC^OPH^THON RUBRICAUDA ROTHSCHILDI, Subsp. nOV. Laysan ; Niihau. Separated by its weaker bill and shorter wing from the Kermadec form, from which it differs also in coloration, as indicated by Rothschild and quoted above. Sc.aJOPH^THON RUBRICAUDA BREVIROSTRIS, Subsp. n. Bonin Islands. Separated by its small bill which measures 56 to 59 mm. Collected lOth May, 1911. The eggs are also smaller, 59-62.5 by 43-44. August 1910. 303 Order PELEGANIFOBMES No. 288. Family PHASTHONTID^. SOiEOPHiETHON RUBRICAUDA WESTRALIS. WESTRALIAN KED-TAILED TROPIC BIRD. (Plate 231.)* Ph^thon eitbeioafda westealis Mathews, Austral Avian Record, Vol. I., p. 88, 1912 ; Rottnest Island, West Australia. Phaeton ruhricauda Carter, Emu, Vol. III., p. 211, 1904. Phcethon rvbrimuda ib., Vol. X., p. 265, 1911. Phmthon rubricaudus rubricaudus Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 243, 1912. Phcethon rubricauda westralis Mathews, Austral Avian Record, Vol. I., p. 88, 1912. SccEophcBthon rubricauda westralis Mathews, list Birds Austr., p. 100, 1913. Disteibution. Western Australia. (Extra Hmital). Adult nude. General colour both above and below silky white with a pinky hue; the feathers on the crown and nape have dark bases ; a black patch in front and behind the eye ; bastard-wing, primary-coverts, greater coverts and quills white tinged vsdth pink, all the feathers having conspicuously black shafts ; some of the innermost secondaries black broadly margined with white ; the long flank-feathers white, lead grey on the inner portion of the outer webs, and those on the sides of the rump grey, broadly margined with white ; tail-feathers pinky-white with black shafts becoming red on the elongated middle feathers. Bill orange-red, nostrils brown ; feet and upper part of legs faint blue, rest black. Total length 520 mm. ; culmen 67, wing 343, tail 92, middle feathers 442, tarsus 32. Adult female. Similar to the adult male. Nest. A depression on the ground. Eggs. Clutch, one or two ; similar to those of S. r. novcehollandice. Axis 63 mm. ; diameter 48 (White). Breeding-season. October to February. The occurrence of a Red-tailed Tropic Bird in Western Australia seems to have been first noticed by Campbell who, in his Nests and Eggs of Australian Birds, Vol. II., p. 994, 1901, included in the geographical distribution of Phcethon rubricauda : “ Seas of West and North-west Australia,” and added on p. 995 — “ From the other side of the Continent Mr. G. K. Beddoes writes : ‘ Found Tropic Bird nesting on Pelsart Island (Abrolhos) ; month, February ; * The Plate is lettered PhoBthon westralis. 304 PHAETHON WESTRALIS. r^USTRAZIAN RED-TAILEJD TROPIC BIRR ). WESTRALIAN RED-TAILED TROPIC BIRD. two eggs, both hard set. Following February two nests same kind were taken on Rat Island ; two eggs in each. T could not rescue the eggs, not being the finder.’ ” This statement as to the number of eggs agrees with that of the elder Macgillivray, but otherwise the majority of collectors record only one as a clutch. The only note I have regarding this form is that by Mr. Tom Carter, who states : “ The only specimen noted of this beautiful species was shot by me near Point Cloates on April 23, 1891, while it was hovering above a sheep camp near the beach. An old sailor and whaler, who worked for me a long time, assured me that on one occasion he had seen a small flock flying about the mouth of the River Swan at Fremantle, where the presence of such rare visitors caused much attention and remark among seafaring men.” I have discussed the status of this subspecies under the preceding form. The bird figured and described is the type male collected on Houtman’s Abrolhos, West Australia, in November, 1894. VOL. rv. 305 Gentjs—L EPTOPH^THON. Leptoph^thon Mathews, Austral Avian Record, Vol. II., p. 56, 1913 . . . . . . . . . , . . Type L. dorothece. Lepturus Reichenbach, Nat. Syst. Vogel, p. vii., 1852 . . Type L. lepturus, (Not Lepturus Brisson, 1760, nor Swainson, 1838.) Small Phsethons with strong bills, long wings, long tail, small legs and feet. In general features the species of this genus agree with ScceophcBtJion, but they differ appreciably in size. Proportionately the wing and tail are much longer, the tail being differently formed. In Scceophcethon the culmen is more than half the length of the tail without the central pair of tail-feathers, which is less than one-third the length of the wing. In Leptophcethon the culmen is less than haff the length of the tail as above, which is more than one- third the length of the wing. The central tail-feathers in Leptophcethon are very long with the webs normal and fairly wide, and the pair next to the central pair are long and are twice the length of the outside pair, the tail being thus strongly wedge- shaped. In Scceophcethon the central pair are very long, but the webs are degenerate and are scarcely broader than the shaft, while the tail otherwise is wedge-shaped but without much gradation. The metatarsus is less than a quarter of the length of the tail in Leptophcethon^ while in Scceophcethon it is more than one-third. The middle toe is never pectinate in this family. 306 1 I PHAETHON DOROTH/EA. (WHITE-TAILED TROPIC BIRD). Order PELEGANIFOBMES No. 289. Family PHMTHONTIDM. LEPTOPHiETHON LEPTURUS DOROTHEA. WHITE-TAILED TROPIC BIRD. (Plate 232.)* pHiETHON LEPTURtrs DOROTHEA Mathews, Austral Avian Record, Vol. II., p. 7, 1913 ; Queensland. Phceton Upturns North, Rec, Austr. Mus., Vol. III., p. 89, 1898 ; id., ib., Vol. VI., p. 343, 1907. Phcethon Upturns Hall, Key Birds Austr., p. 103, 1899 ; Campbell, Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 995, 1901; Hall, Key Birds Austr., 2nd ed., p. 103, 1906; Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 39, 1908. Phcethon Upturns Upturns Mathews, Nov. ZooL, Vol. XVIII., p.^243, 1912. Phceton Upturns dorothece Mathews, Austral Avian Record, Vol. p. 7, 1913, Leptophcethon Upturns dorothece Mathews, List Birds Austr., p. 101, 1913. Distribution. Queensland ; New South Wales. Adult male. General colour above and below pearl white ; a circular black line in front and over the eye which broadens out behind the latter ; the feathers of the hinder crown and nape have dark bases ; median upper wing-coverts black ; primary- quills black on the outer web and, including the shafts, white at the tips, the black decreasing on the inner ones which have only a black shaft ; outer secondaries white, inner ones black and white ; scapulars white, subterminally black with white edges ; rump and upper tail-coverts white with black bases and black shafts ; tail-feathers white with black shafts ; feathers on the sides of the rump black with white margins. Bill red ; eyes white ; feet black ; tibia yellowish. Total length 400 mm. ; culmen 44, wing 281, tail 115, middle feathers 380, tarsus 24. Adult female. Similar to the adult male. Nest. “ A hole or hollow of a rock or tree-stump ” (Campbell), Eggs. “ Clutch one ; ground-colour buff, freckled all over with purplish-brown.” Axis 57 mm. ; diameter 44 (White, Fiji). Nothing is known of the life-history of this bird, as only stragglers have yet been recorded on the Queensland and New South Wales coasts. Campbell, in his Nests and Eggs Austr. Birds, p. 995-1901, gave the following notes : “ Geographical Distribution. The coasts of West and North-west Australia, Northern Territory, Queensland, and New South Wales. * The Plate is lettered Phcethon dorothcee. 807 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. Observations. Although the White-tailed Tropic Bird is usually restricted to tropical waters, in Australia it has been observed as far south as Houtman’s Abrolhos, on the west coast, while on the east coast an immature specimen was blown ashore at Botany Bay (New South Wales) during February, 1898, after an occurrence of easterly gales.” Otherwise I have traced no record on the West Coast, and it should be emphasized that no breeding-place of this species is known nearer than the Seychelles, and that on Christmas Island, Indian Ocean, the distinct and beautiful species, Leptopiimthon fulvus (Brandt) occurs. If L. lepturus has been procured on the West Coast it suggests that an Australian breeding locality may be looked for. Examination of the available material shows that though little difference in coloration can be observed, there is a very slight but appreciable difference in measurements. This is only as regards the three Oceans : the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific, but when long series are available many forms may be determined. This seems certain when we bear in mind that on Christmas Island, Indian Ocean, a most beautiful species lives which has varied only in attaining a uniform rich salmon throughout its plumage, the black markings remaining unchanged. Again, in the North Atlantic Ocean, the plumage has not materially altered in shade, yet the black markings on the primaries show sufficient differences to demand specific recognition. Atlantic Ocean birds give measurements as follows : Ascension Island birds, the tail without the elongated tail-feathers. Culmen. Wing. Tail. Middle Toe, 51 265 102 30 mm. 50 267 111 31 48 256 109 30 49 266 111 29 Fernando Noronha specimens 47 • • 266 114 31 .lip « • • • 49 262 118 31 46 266 119 30 Indian Ocean birds give : 48 + 270 113 31 Mauritius 48 269 120 29 50 273 117 31 44 + 275 112 32 51 282 121 31 48 270 116 30 308 WHITE-TAILED TEOPIC BIED. Gulmen. Wing. Tail. Middle Toe. Eodriguez ^ 51 273 121 33 ^ .. 46 265 120 31 $ .. Pacific Ocean birds measure : 48 264 118 31 Near Tongatabu $ 41 261 108 28 Samoa 44 246 107 26-5 Samoa 47 263 111 29 Upolu, Samoa . . 46 258 105 27 Navigators I. 43 271 109 28 Pelew I. . . 42 258 104 28 N. of New Guinea 45 260 101 27 Criticism of the above figures show that the Pacific birds differ from the Indian Ocean birds in their slightly smaller size, the bill being somewhat noticeably so. Atlantic Ocean birds show small measurements like those of the Pacific, but have long bills like those of the Indian Ocean birds. There are half a dozen names, but these were all introduced for the same form. The earliest Phmton lepturus Daudin in Buff. Hist. Nat. ed. Didot, 18mo Quadr., Vol. XIV., p. 319, 1802, was given to the bird described in Oiseaux, Vol. XVI., p. 280, which quoted the Plan. Enlum., No. 369, and gave Mauritius as the type locality. This name was rescued from oblivion by Mr. C. D. Sherborn when engaged upon his monumental IndBx AnimaliuTYi, and was indicated to Ogilvie-Grant, at that time monographing the Family in the Catalogue of the Bivds in the Bvitish Museum’, the latter, the opportunity being thus presented, became, for the time being, an ultra -prioritarian, and at once made use of Daudin’s name, discarding as useless synon3mas the familiar PhcBthon candidus and P. flaviTostvis. These were based upon the same plate and description, so that this action was absolutely correct. \ Phaeton albus was proposed by Schinz and Brodtmann, Naturg. u AhUld Vogel. Gattungen, p. 402, 1830. The description is very brief and no locality is given. I therefore designate Mauritius, and this will become a synonym of Daudin’s P. lepturus. Brandt, in the Mem. VAcad. Imp. Sci. St. Petersb., Ser. 6, Vol. V., pt. 2, 1840, monographed the PhsBthons, and on p. 270 proposed Phoethon catesbyi for the bird described and figured in Catesby’s Nat. Hist, of Carol, Vol. II., Edwards Edition, p. 114, pi. 14, 1771, and on p. 271 Phcethon edwardsii for the bird described and figured by Edwards, Nat. Hist. Birds, part iii p. 149, tab. 149, 1750. 309 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. TliG latter of these names was cited by Ogilvie-Grant as a synonym of PhcBthon leptuTus Daudin, but the former was placed under PJicBthon CBthe.reus Linn. The quaint part of this latter action is that the plate upon which Brandt’s P. catesbyi was founded was quoted as representing the species which Ogilvie- Grant had named PJiCBtJion americanus.'^ The locality and description as well as the excellent figure given by Catesby show Ogilvie-Grant’ s reference of Catesby’s account to the bird he had named PheePkoTn aTtiBricanus to be correct. But the necessary sequence of this conclusion is the acceptance of Brandt’s name and the rejection of Ogilvie-Grant’s. That is, the name of the Bermuda breeding Tropic Bird is PhcBthon cateshyi Brandt, and Pheethon americanus Ogilvie-Grant becomes an absolute synon}^!. As the type locality of Brandt’s species I fix Bermuda, the locality whence Catesby himself procured specimens. The name Phmthon edwardsii was given to Edwards’ account and plate and no locality is mentioned. As the most probable localities for Edwards’ bird are the West Indies or Mauritius, the most reasonable method seems to be the arbitrary selection of the latter and Phc&tJion edwardsii will become an absolute synonym of P. Upturns Daudin. The species and forms, then, of the genus Leptopheethon would read : LEPTOPH.a:THO]sr FULvus (Brandt). Christmas Island (Indian Ocean). As a synonym, Lawrence’s P. fiavo-aurantius may be noted as commonly recognised. Leptoph.®thon catesbyi (Brandt). Bermuda (breeding) ; West Indies. This name will replace PhcBthon americanus Ogilvie-Grant. Ogilvie- Grant’s name was utilised by the American Ornithologists in their Checklist, 3rd ed., p. 59, 1910, because they had accepted Bonaparte’s reference of P. catesbyi to the synon 5 my of P. cethereus Linne, though they should have known that only one species of Tropic Bird bred on the Bermudas, and that was not P. cethereus. Had they referred to Catesby’s work, the figure was quite sufficient to negative the association of Brandt’s name with P. cethereus Linne. Catesby described the bill as “ red ” ; this species is known as the Yellow-billed Tropic Bird. Recently Karl Platt in the Ibis 1914, p. 554, has confirmed Catesby’s observation made one hundred and seventy years ago, noting that the birds have red bills when alive. I suggest the replacing of the misleading vernacular by the name Catesby’s Phaethon or Tropic Bird. This bird is only separable by its slightly large size and the variation in the black markings of the primaries. In most genera such trifling differences * of. Mathews, Auk 1915, p. 195. 310 WHITE-TAILED TROPIC BIRD. would only be regarded as of subspecific value, but when dealing with Ancient Forms such as the present, these must be given higher value. I therefore regard it as a valid species, as the Ascension Island birds scarcely seem to differ in any details save measurements from those of the Pacific Ocean. Leptoph^thon lepturus (Daudin). Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. I recognise one subspecies at present from each Ocean, but series would probably enable the differentiation of more. Leptoph.®thon lepturus lepturus (Daudin). Mauritius ; Rodriguez. As synonyms should be noted : Phceihon candidus Temminck, Phmthon albus Schinz and Brodtmann, Phcethon flavirostris Brandt and Phcethon edwardsii Brandt. Leptophjethon lepturus dorothe.® Mathews. Queensland ; Pacific Ocean. Differs from L. 1. Upturns Daudin in its smaller size throughout. Measure- ments : Cuhnen 41-47; wing 246-271; tail, 101-111; middle toe 26.5- 29 mm. Ditto of L. 1. Upturns Daudin from Mauritius : cuhnen 48-51 ; wing, 269-282 ; tail 116-121 ; middle toe 29-32 mm. The bird with the longest wing from the Pacific Ocean, viz. 271 mm., has a bill measuring 43 mm. only, and the bird with the shortest wing from Mauritius, viz. 269 mm., has the bill 48 mm. Rodriguez birds seem slightly smaller than typical Mauritius ones ; cuhnen 46-51 ; wing 264-273 ; tail 118-121 ; middle toe, 31-33 mm. Leptophjethon I.EPTURUS ASCENSiONis, subsp. n. Ascension Island (type) ; Fernando Noronha. Ascension Island birds differ from typical P. 1. Upturns Daudin in their smaller wing measurement, though otherwise fairly agreeing. Cuhnen 47- 51 ; wing 256-267 ; tail 102-111 ; middle toe 29-31 mm. These differ^ from the preceding in their slightly longer bills and middle toe. Three birds from Fernando Noronha give : culmen 46-49 ; wing 262-270 ; tail 113-119 ; middle toe 30-31 mm. The tail measurements throughout are for the tail without the two central feathers. The bird figured and described is the type, collected near Cairns, Queensr- land, in October, 1906. 311 Genus— CATOPTROPELICANUS. Catoptropelicanus Reichenbacli, Nat. Syst. Vogel, p. vii., 1852 . , . . . . . . Type C. conspicillatus. Large Pelecanine birds, characterised by their feathered lores. AU other members of the Family have the lores naked. The Family is diagnosed by the huge bill with broad flattened upper mandible and immense gular pouch ; the birds are very large, heavily built, with long wings, medium neck, short tail, and short stout legs and feet. The bill is very long, broad and flattened : the culminicorn consists of a flattened portion, continuous with the small sharply-hooked nail ; the laterals are cleanly divided by a narrow* groove, at the base of the culmen almost concealing the linear nostrils ; the laterals broaden and flatten past the middle ; the rami of the lower mandible are vertical, thick and strong at the base, where they extend beyond the upper mandible edges, but becoming slender about the middle, where they are overlapped by the upper edges ; the nail is short and hooked ; the interramal region develops a huge distensible naked pouch. The culmen is about two-thirds the length of the wing. The lores are feathered, but the eyes are surrounded by a bare patch : a breeding-crest is assumed. The wings are long, the third primary longest, the fourth longer than the second, the first about equal to the fifth ; the wing-coverts long and lanceolate. The tail is short, wedge-shaped, composed of twenty-two feathers, and is less than half the length of the culmen. The legs are short and stout, reticulate throughout, but the scales smaller on the back ; the metatarsus is more than half the length of the tail but less than one-third the length of the culmen. The toes are long, scutellate, the hind toe long, the middle toe longest, all connected by webs. In the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVI., Ogilvie- Grant admitted a Family Pelecanidce, covering the genus Pelecanus only. The main reason for this classification was the size of the birds and the few species existent. Otherwise characters of good generic value were recognisable. 312 CATOPTEOPELICANUS. and as long ago as 1852 Eeichenbach {Nat. Syst. Vogel, 1852, p. vii.) had subdivided the genus thus : — Cyrtopelicanus Rchb. trachyrJiyncJius Lath. Leptopelicanus Rchb. fuscus L. Gm. Catoptropelicanus Rchb. perspicillatus R. (Temminck). Onocrotalus Gesn. gesneri Rzaczynski.” Whether the other sections provided by Reichenbach are of value or not, the one proposed for the Australian species certainly demands generic recognition, as it differs from aU other Pelicans in having feathered lores. Such a character in a bird of this kind indicates a great differentiation in the progress of evolution, and instead of being minimised should be emphasized as it once more throws into relief the peculiar nature of the Austrahan Avifauna. It is unfortunate that Reichenbach should have provided such a lengthy name for this form, but the usage of his invention cannot be avoided. Order PELECANIFORMES Family PELECANIDJE. No. 290. CATOPTROPELIOANUS CONSPICILLATUS. AUSTRALIAN PELICAN. (Plate 233.)* Pelecanus CONSPICILLATUS Temminck et Laugier, Planch. Color d’Ois., 47® livr., Vol. III., pi. 276, 1824 ; New South Wales. New Holland Pelican Latham, Gen. Hist. Birds, Vol. X., p. 402, 1824. Pelecanus conspicillatus Temminck et Laugier, Planch. Color d’Ois., 47 livr., Vol. III., pi. 276, 1824 ; Lesson, Traite d’Om., p. 602, 1831 ; Drapiez, Diet. Sci. Nat., Vol. VIII., p. 385, 1842 ; Gray, List Birds Brit. Mus., pt. iii., p. 189, 1844 ; id., Genera Birds, Vol. III., p. 668, 1845 ; Gould, Birds Austr., Vol. VII., pi. 74, 1847 ; Macgillivray, Narr. Voy. “Rattlesnake,” Vol. II., p. 359, 1852 ; Bonaparte, Consp. Gen. Av., Vol. II., p. 161, 1856 ; Elsey, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1857, p. 28, Schlegel, Mus. Pays-Bas, Vol. VI., Pelec., p. 36, 1863; Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., Vol. II., p. 486, 1865 ; Ramsay, Ibis 1866, p. 335 ; Elliot, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1869, p. 590 ; Gray, Handl. Gen. Sp. Birds, pt. m., p. 130, 1871 ; Pelzeln, Ibis 1873, p. 53 ; Ramsay, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1877, p. 348 ; Higgles, Birds Austr., Vol. II., pi. and p. 119, 1877; D’Albertis, Ibis 1877, p. 372; Salvador!, Om. Papua, e Moll., Vol. III., p. 414, 1883 ; Legge, Papers and Proc. Roy. Soc. Tasm. 1886, p. 244, 1887 ; id., ib., 1887, p. 96, 1888 ; Ramsay, Tab. List Austr. Birds, p. 25, 1888 ; North, Aust. Mus. Cat., no. 12, p. 368, 1890 ; Le Souef, Ibis 1895, p. 423 ; Reichenow, Journ. fur Orn., 1897, p. 216 ; Ogilvie-Grant, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVI., p. 483, 1898 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., p. 104, 1899 ; Campbell, Nest and Eggs Austr. Birds, Vol. II., p. 997, 1901 ; Lyons, Emu, Vol. I., p. 137, 1902 ; Hill, Emu, Vol. II., p. 167, 1903 ; Dove, ib., Vol. V., p. 87, 1905 ; Hall, Key Birds Austr., p. 104, 1906 ; Berney, Emu, Vol. VI., p. 155, 1907 ; Batey, ib., Vol. VII., p. 17, 1907 ; Austin, ib., p. 78, 1907 ; Mathews, Handl. Birds Austral., p. 39, 1908 ; MeUor, Emu, Vol. VII., p. 186, 1908 ; S. A. White, Emu, Vol. VIII., p. 199, 1909 ; Hill, ib., p 223, 1909 ; Littler, Handb. Birds Tasm., p. 202, 1910 ; Macgillivray, Emu, Vol. X., p. 217, 1910; Broadbent, ib., p. 245, 1910; Stone, ib., Vol. XII., p. 121, 1912 ; Mellor and White, ib., p. 161, 1913 ; Stone, ib., Vol. XIII., p. 83, 1913; Agnew, ib., p. 94, 1913; S. A. White, ib., p. 124, 1914; Macgillivray, ib., p. 149, 1914. Pelecanus australis Stephens, in Shaw’s Gen. Zool., Vol. XIII., pt. i., p. 113, 1826. * The Plate is lettered Pelecanus conspicillatus. 314 o • O PELECANUS CONSPICILLATUS. (EASTERN PELICAN AUSTRALIAN PELICAN. Catoftropelicanus perspicillatus Reichenbaoh, Nat. Syst. Vogel, p. vii., 1852. Catoptropelicanus conspicillatus Heine, Nomencl. Mus. Hein., p. 351, 1890 ; “ Rchb.” Ogilvie-Grant, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVI., p. 483, 1898 (in synonymy). Pelecanus conspicillatus conspicillatus Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 244, 1912, Catoptropelicanus conspicillatus conspicillatus Mathews, list Birds Austr., p. 101, 1913. The following synonyms refer to the Western Bird : Pelecanus conspicillatus Elsey, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1857, p. 28 ; Walker, Ibis 1892, p. 257 ; Carter, Emu, Vol. III., p. 210, 1904 ; Kilgour, Emu, Vol. IV., p. 38, 1904 ; Nicholls, Emu, Vol. V., p. 82, 1905 ; Gibson, Emu, Vol. VIII., p. 64, 1908 ; Whitlock, ih., p. 194, 1909 ; Crossman, %b., Vol. IX., p. 149, 1910 ; Mathews, ih., , p. 239, 1910; Ogilvie-Grant, Ibis 1910, p. 171 ; Hill, Emu, Vol. X., p. 265, 1911 ; Barnard, ih., Vol. XI., p. 20, 1911 ; Hill, ih., Vol. XII., p. 254, 1913 ; Barnard, ih., Vol. XIV., p. 41, 1914. Pelecanus conspicillatus westralis Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 244, 1912 (Perth, West Australia). Catoptropelicanus conspicillatus westralis Mathews, List Birds Austr., p. 101, 1913. Distribution. Australia ; Tasmania. Adult male {in breeding plumage). Head and neck all round, entire under-surface, middle of back, upper and under wing-coverts white ; the small coverts along the inner margin of the wing black, median and greater upper wing-coverts also black with white on the outer webs of the greater series ; bastard-wing, primary-coverts and quills black, some of the secondaries white at the base ; scapulars black, extreme basal portion white ; sides of the rump and some of the upper tail-coverts black ; tail-feathers black, white only at the extreme base ; nuchal crest more or less greyish-brown ; a few of the under wing-coverts black, others partially black and white ; ornamental feathers on the fore-neck well developed. Bill, culmen flesh- colour, grooves and tip and sides of upper and lower mandible slate-blue, nail of upper mandible greenish horn-colour, pouch pale flesh-colour ; eyes dark brown, eyelids deep indigo blue ; feet light slate-colour. Total length 1,620 mm. ; culmen 464, wing 653, tail 180, tarsus 126. Adult female. Similar to the adult male. Immature. Differs from the adult in having the dark portions of the upper-surface brown instead of black. '^\ Nestling. Naked, skin fleshy-pink. Nest. A slight depression in the ground ; placed in colonies. Eggs. Clutch two, white and chalky, surface uneven and glossless. Axis 87-94 mm. ; diameter 56-58. Breeding-season. — July to November. Though Pelicans are sometimes noted by the early voyageurs, none seem to have been brought back to England, and apparently the first observation was made upon the figure provided by Watling. \'\^en Latham examined the Watling Drawings he simply referred “Drawing No. 292,” which 315 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. represents this species, to the White Pelican, Gen. Synops., Vol. III., p. 575, as a variety. Later, he reconsidered the matter, and in the General History of Birds, Vol. X., p. 402, 1824, described it as a new species, thus : New Holland Pelican. Length five feet, extent of wings seven. Bill, and round the eye, yellow ; plumage in general white ; the beginning of the back, the quills, and tail, black ; inner half of the lesser wing-coverts white ; legs pale blue ; webs dusky ; the quills reach to above the middle of the tail. Inhabits New Holland, known by the name of Karrang-aba.” To this description, two years later, Stephens gave the name Pelecanus australis, but, simultaneously with Latham’s description, Temminck had figured and named a specimen Pelecanus conspicillatus. Though many notes are available regarding this bird, it cannot yet be said that its life- history is well known. Its large size attracts attention, but little study appears as yet to have been given to its habits. Mr. A. H. Mattingley has written me : “ Young are born blind, the skin of a fleshy-pink, somewhat glazed and transparent looking, and quite naked. The young are delicate and easily succumb if left any length of time by their parents on a cold day. In a large rookery Pelicans’ eggs are scattered about, a great number being found away from the nests, some even being laid or have been carried to the water’s edge. A pungent odour pervades the rookery. The young fight vigorously even when very small and unable to walk. They peck at an intruder if approached closely, meanwhile uttering a raucous sound of anger. The old birds are very shy and wary and usually clear out when anyone approaches the rookery. There is always a sentinel on guard, and although one might be a mile away in a boat the sentinel will usually fly over to inspect the intruders and then report to the main body of pelicans.” Capt. S. A. White notes : “ This grand and timid bird was met with on many parts of the Lake (Alexandrina, South Australia), and often in the early mornings were seen drifting down the passage all in line like battleships, presenting a glorious sight. These birds consume great quantities of an unedible fish called Bony Bream.” Mr. J. W. Mellor has communicated the following : “ The Pelican, I am glad to say, has not been quite driven away by the head hunters’ raids of last year, and we hope to preserve its breeding-place at any rate. The three small islets in the Coorong, between Woods’ Wells and Salt Creek, are the only places now in South Australia where these once plentiful birds breed. These islands with others have now been placed by the Commissioner of Crown Lands under the care and protection of the South Australian Ornithological Association, and it was in the interests of these birds that I took this trip of inspection and found them still breeding on Pelican Island, 316 AUSTRALIAN PELICAN. Flat Pelican Island and Upper Pelican Island ; these are but rocky islets with a little clay and sand over them, and a very few low bushes here and there, but very small, only about 100 yards long and twenty or thirty wide the largest. The Pelicans seem to go to one island first, and when sufficient have nested there, go to the next, etc., as on one island there were a number of young and no fresh eggs, the young being from those without a vestige of clothing to fully-fledged birds. It was on the 22nd September that we came up to the Pelican Islands, and dropping anchor a mile off, we manned the dinghy, and pulled to the shores of Flat Pehcan Island ; as we neared the island the old birds started to rise off the ground and mount into the air, while others waddled to the water’s edge and slid into the water with a cumbersome gait, but none seemed to care to go far away as those that mounted heavenwards settled in the water a quarter of a mile off and floated about in a disturbed manner. There was a number of young about, and these herded together in little flocks like sheep, and as we landed, the largest ones gradually edged off into the water and swam to their parents on some rocks a short distance away, while the younger ones waddled and huddled together in a terrified manner as if expecting the worst was going to happen, but our mission was not ‘ head-hunting,’ and we disturbed them as little as possible. When worried the young disgorge their food in all directions : they start by wobbHng their large cumbersome heads and beaks about in a violent manner from side to side, and soon a fish or their food is vomited up, and then there is a rush of silver gulls to eat up the refuse. I noticed that beside fish the young pelicans are largely fed upon crustaceans, such as shrimps and small prawns, and therefore I am of the opinion that the young of the destructive fish crabs are also used as food, and so the pelican is a benefactor in disguise and should not be wantonly killed out by misguided fishermen who only look on the fish side of the bird’s habits. It was not a place to wish to stay at long, as the repugnant odour given off by the decaying refuse and excreta of the young was far from pleasant, and we were glad to get to the boat again apd push away into the sweet pure air. The next island was Pehcan Island, which is about half a mile distant, and we soon landed there, where we found that the breeding was not so advanced, there being less birds here: a few small young had hatched out and there were also some clutches of well sat-upon eggs dotted about promiscuously on the flat patches of earth, where also a few black swans and silver gulls were also nesting in conjunction with the pehcans, and all apparently agreeing harmoniously together. The stench was also very bad here, and as the sun was nearing the horizon we deemed it expedient to get away again and let the old birds come back to their nests 317 THE BIEDS OF AUSTRALIA. in peace. Next day we proceeded farther up the Coorong about a mile, and dropped anchor again, this time off Upper Pelican Island, and rowed ashore in the dinghy. Here we found that the pehcans had taken up their quarters more recently, as there were numbers of nests, some having the full clutch of two eggs, while others had but one fresh egg, and others again just scratched out ready to receive the eggs. Some eggs were well incubated, and others fresh. It was seventeen years since I visited these islands as described in Campbell’s Nests and Eggs of Australian Birds, and I was very pleased to once more make the acquaintance of my old friends the pelicans. The nests were simply slight hollows scratched in the hard clay, there being no effort made to line this in any way, except that a very little down sometimes comes out of the birds and helps to soften the hard locality to a very small degree. The nests are placed in the open, and not in any sheltered places. Some state that three eggs is the clutch of the pehcan, but I have seen hundreds of nests in my time, and I can safely say that two is the full clutch, and should there be three, which sometimes occurs, it is accidental, as it is the easiest thing in the world amongst these cumbersome birds for an egg to get rolled out, and then roll into the next nest. The eggs vary considerably in size and shape, some being long and narrow, while others are dumpy and short : they get very soiled when sat upon for long, as the dirt that is about gets mixed up in the nest, and the young from a neighbouring nest often waddles over another’s eggs and disarranges them. The texture of the eggs is very coarse and limey : they are pme white when first laid, often having blood marks upon them, their rough nature scratching the intestine of the bird in the passage out ; sometimes there are large lumps of lime sticking to the sides of the egg, and in others the lime is so thick, that when the bird places its rough foot upon the soft shell, a good impression is made on the shell, and as it hardens, it will remain on the shell until the young hatch out. “ The young are destitute of feathers or down until they are fairly well grovm. The pelicans must have started breeding as early as July, and it would be well into December before the young would get away.” Berney’s* observations of this bird in North Queensland read : “ There appears to be no regularity in the movements of the Pehcans that visit us, summer or winter, good seasons or bad. As often as not it is a solitary bird that is seen ; from that to half a dozen, while in mid- winter of 1902 I saw between forty and fifty together, which constitutes my record mob for these parts. Their visits, though fairly frequent, are of short duration. When soaring in wide circles overhead, with wings outstretched * Emu, Vol. VI., p. 15.5, 1907. 318 AUSTRALIAN PELICAN. and motionless save for an occasional flap, they are a decidedly interesting sight.” Stone,* regarding the Birds of Lake Boga, Victoria, writes : “ Very common; I have seen these showy birds massed in scores, following a shoal of small fish, and levying a very heavy toll thereon.” Again, in the Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 83, 1913, Stone added : “ Bounding a bend in the swamp, we would come into view of a sand-spit on which would be perhaps over a hundred Pelicans (Pelecanus conspicillatus), “ Nynungourk,” sunning themselves after a successful fishing expedition. I have often seen hundreds of these birds together on a moonlight night, swimming after a shoal of fish. Their general habit at such times is to bunch together, shoulder to shoulder, and they make a great commotion, eating the fish and swimming at great speed. The Pelican’s power of vision is very great, and in passing from one sheet of water to another at any distance it reaches a great altitude, and soars on outspread wings in spirals before departing, and again previous to ahghting. My observations go to prove that these birds, in their natural state, feed principally upon small fish, though not disdaining a larger one if m the way. A wounded bird will sometimes disgorge a hatful of small fish. The Pelican swims very high in the water.” MacgiUivray, writing about North Queensland birds in the Emu, Vol. XIII., p. 149, 1914, stated : “ Noted in fair numbers throughout the Gulf country, many of the waterholes and lakes containing flocks of twenty or more. All these rivers abound with fish, so that they are always assured of a good supply of food. They were frequently seen on Channel Bock, in Torres Strait. A large flock was also noticed on the swamp between Cripple Creek and Georgetown, where the Native Companions were congregating.” Dr. J. C. Cleland states the stomachs of five specimens gave results as foUows : “1. Nearly two pints of prawns, with fish about two inches Ibng. 2. Freshwater crayfish and a few shrimps ; small fish ; tapeworm in intestines. 3. Freshwater crayfish. 4. Freshwater crayfish. 5. Freshwater crayfish and several small fish, one four and a half inches long. A large number of round worms about an inch and a half long in stomachs of all specimens.” * Emu, Vol. XII., p. 121, 1912. 319 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. Many other notes are on record, but apparently none detailing the habits of the bird, but merely notices that the bird is common or rare, and consequently httle is known of its hfe-history. As this is a bird which will certainly suffer rapidly from the advance of civilisation, it is obvious that action should be taken at once, and its habits fully recorded before it is too late. The bird figured and described is a male collected on the Fish River, New South Wales, on the 6th of January, 1910. The following notes refer to the Western bird : The first note regarding this form seems to be that by Elsey, who in a letter from the Victoria River Depot, North Western Australia [Northern Territory] published by Gould in the Proc. Zool Soc. (Lond.) 1857, p. 28, observed : “ The pelican is white, with black wings, and a very fine blue- and-purple margin round the pouch. It is, I presume, Pelecanus conspicillatus. Its breeding-season is March and April.” Mr. Tom Carter has written me : “ The Pefican occurs commonly throughout Western Austraha, wherever the food supply and surroundings are suitable. In the centre of the Princess Royal Harbour at Albany a flock could almost always be seen^ in the vicinity of, or resting upon a sand bank that afforded a clear view all round. On the sandbanks about the estuary of the great Gascoyne River at Carnarvon, as many as two hundred can frequently be seen in a flock, and I often watched them last year (1913). They used to breed regularly at Pefican Island some distance further south in Shark’s Bay. They were common in the mangrove creeks in the vicinity of the North-west Cape and my natives informed me that they used to breed on a small island in the Exmouth Gulf. Some of these birds go a long way inland in order to fish in some of the permanent pools of such large rivers as the Gascoyne and Lyons.” Mr. J. P. Rogers’ notes read : “A small flock was seen on the water one mile east of my camp at Marngle Creek. Several were seen on swamps near the Fitzroy when returning to Derby from Jegurrack, and one pair flew over Derby the day I left for Port Darwin. These birds are said to breed on the West Island of the Lacepede Group, North of Broome. I saw young birds at Broome in 1902 said to have been procured on this island in October. Are not numerous in West Kimberley. “ September 6, 1908. About twenty pelicans have arrived and taken up their quarters on Parry’s Creek : these are the first I have seen. They are very quiet. “ September 7, 1908. Ten more arrived to-day. 320 AUSTRALIAN PELICAN. “ September 8. Pelicans again seen on Parry’s Creek. I frightened them, and about one hour afterwards saw them settled down on a plain about three- quarters of a mile from the nearest water. “September 28, 1911. Melville Island. One of these birds was seen at Cooper’s Camp, the only one to date.!’ \ VOL IV. 321 Wii R' ■'"a.'R* 1 m M jU' WvTiy'. .■■9 Cl., ■^i ■-; ■ fff*^--a i' "'.••< 1?'- L 71- iiil ;sn . •<7 ■ I V:<.. V ‘t VV;. I, ^f.V '. " - • I • • . ." ' •. ■' ' ^i.,* '•I Vi ■ * f''^', ^ H'^.l'./,'" < ■'•"'’.'ir * > "■v, . |j ;• . ^ , ,JV. ■ . - ’■'!'•»' ■* ■ i- ■/ I* * “■ j'’ •>ir' j • r - • » 'm * ' 'h'>v . • ,;■ ■ ■ f '• il'i I ' ■' 'V' '-i V^,ft''r..j':vK| .. " 'A ■■ (.Vi • I I *■ ' ( 'I ' . ■ ' *j ' *r^i : «' ' ■■• ; /' p' I M' , i;. ..'• , ;. ' » ^ % ■r. . ** \i '■ >' i" BW . •' '•.■k'"' t ■ ■r.. j/ • r.'' ' W • fe'^. Kf ?f K50 ^ ■ ' • . < fef If A .= S'fSj'lp ' FV^!.! i ' >j Mmm r:*, ar,!.!. sr.7 '■fy mM INDEX Note. — T he cyphers in thick type refer to the page where the genus or species is systematically treated. These are placed first. abhotti, Sula, 215 . Abeltera, 201, 230 . adscensionis, Diomedea, 214 , 216 . cegyptiaca, Chenalopex, 2 . cethereus, Phcethon, 292 , 301 , 302 , 310 . , Tropicophilus, 292 . Aethyia, 131 . australis, 134 . Aiihya, 131 . Aithyia, 131 . albipenis, Nettapus coromandelianus, 35 . albipennis, Anserella, 35 . , Cheniscus coroTrmndelianus, 35 , 34 . , Nettapus, 35 . , coromandeliamts, 35 . , [Anserella), 35 . albiventer, Garbo, 171 . albiventris, Graculus, 171 . albus, Phmthon, 311 . , Phceton, 309 . aldabrensis, Fregata minor, 262 , 267 , 273 , 276 , 277 , 279 , 280 . Aluco flammea, 209 . aluco, Strix, 209 . americanus, Graculus, 171 . , Phcethon, 310 . , Phalacrocorax carho, 171 . Anas, 84 , 95 , 114 , 117 . atrata, 12 . australis, 134 . badia, 66 . carunculata, 143 . castanea, 97 , 100 , 107 . cygnus niger, 13 . fasciata, 124 . gibberifrons, 102 , 107 , 108 . gracilis, 107 , 108 , 112 . iodotis, 125 . jubata, 53 . kasarkoides, 78 . leucophrys, 91 . lobata, 143 . mcdacorhyncha, 125 . Anas melanoleum, 25 , 27 , 28 . membranacea, 124 . mulleri, 91 . ncevosa, 129 . novoehollandice, 86 . platyrhynchos, 84 . plutonia, 12 . punctata, 97 , 102 , 105 . radjah, 74 , 76 . rhynchotis, 120 . semipalmata, 25 , 26 , 28 , 64 . subata, 53 . superciliosa, 18 , 70 , 85 , 90 , 92 , 100 , 103 , 104 , 182 . pelewensis, 90 , 91 . rogersi, 85 , 86 , 91 , 92 . superciliosa, 86 , 91 . tadornoides, 78 , 80 . terrce-leeuwin, 45 . vagans, 66 . (Anseranas) melanoleuca, 26 . [Querquedula) humeralis, 115 . (Viuago) castanea, 107 . Anassus, 84 . andrewsi, Fregata, 270 , 274 , 276 , 277 , 280 , 287 . Anhinga, 193 , 156 , 177 . anhinga, 193 . novcehollandioe, 195 , 196 . anhinga, Anhinga, 193 . \ \ Anser, 1 , 6 , 43 , 51 . ' bassanus, 24 . griseus, 45 , 47 . jubatus, 53 . lophotus, 53 . melanoleucus, 25 . novcehollandice, 12 . radjah, 2 , 6 . semipalmatus, 25 . [Brenthus) jubatus, 54 . Anseranas, 23 , 5 , 8 , 61 . • melanoleuca, 29 . melanoleucus, 25 . semipalmata, 25 , 23 , 26 , 31 . 323 THE BIRDS OP AUSTRALIA Am&ranas semipalmata hamiltoni, 26. semipalmatus, 26. Anseramis, 23. melanoleucus, 25. Anserella, 32, 33. alhi'pennis, 35. pulchella, 39. aquila, Attagen, 240, 242. , Fregata, 240, 241, 242, 246, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 255, 256, 257, 259, 260, 261, 264, 268, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 276, 277, 280, 283. , aquila, 251. , Tachy'petes, 240, 242, 247, 248, 268. aquiluSj Atagen, 240, 246, 247. , Fregata,, 238. , Pelecanus, 242, 243, 244, 245, 247, 254, 264, 271, 272. , Tachy'petes, 246. arcuata, Dendrocycna, 62. , Dendrocygna, 62, 64, 66, 69. ariel, Atagen, 282. , Attagen, 250. , Fregata, 242, 243, 246, 249, 250, 252, 254, 257, 260, 261, 264, 267, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 281, 282, 283, 284, 286, 287, 288. , ariel, 282, 239, 243, 276, 277, 286, 287. , Tachypetes, 282. Aristonetta, 2, 4, 5. ascensionis, Leptophcetkon Upturns, 311. Asio otus, 209. asio, Otus, 209. assimilis, Malacorhynchus, 124. ■ , membranaceus, 125. , Puffinus, 243. Atagen, 236. aquilus, 240, 246, 247. ariel, 282. minor, 282. ater, Garbo, 174, 176. , ater, 175. , Mesocarbo, 173. , ater, 174, 175. Athya, 131. atrata. Anas, 12. , Chenopis, 12, 10, 13, 18, 21. , Chenopsis, 13, 47. atratus, Gy gnus, 12, 47. Attagen, 236. aquila, 240, 242. — ^ — ariel, 250. auritus, Phalacrocoraz, 170. Australian Brown Gannet (Booby), 231. Gannet, 219. Masked Gannet, 226. Pelican, 314. Bed-legged Gannet, 210. Australian Shoveler, 120. australis. Anas, 134. , Aethyia, 134. , Ayihya, 134. , Biziura, 138. , Gereopsis, 45. , Glangula {Oxyura), 138. -, Dendrocygna arcuata, 62, 66. , javanica, 62. , Erismatura, 138. , Fulica, 135. Fuligida, 134. , Ilyonetta, 134. , Nyroca, 133, 70, 87. , nyroca, 134. , Oxyura, 138. , australis, 138. , Pelecanus, 314, 316. , Sula, 219, 223. Ayihia, 131. Aythya, 131, 132. australis, 134. Aythyia, 131. badia. Anas, 66. baeri, Fuligula, 134. bassana, Sula, 201, 203, 204. , Sulita, 217, 223. bassanus, Anser, 214. , Dysporus, 202. , Pelecanus, 158, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205. bedouti, Parasula dactylatra, 226. , Sula dactylatra, 200, 226, 229. bergii. Sterna, 181. Bernicla jubata, 53. melanoleuca, 25. semipalmata, 25 bicolor, Nettapus, 35. Biziura, 141, 8. australis, 138. lobata, 139, 140, 141, 143, 147, 149. lobata, 143, 144, 147. menziesi, 147. westralis, 144. novcehollandicB, 143. westralis, 143, 146. Black Cormorant, 164. Duck, 85. Swan, 12. and \\Tiite Goose, 25. Blue-biUed Duck, 138. Booby, 231. Boschas, 84. bougainvillii, Hypoleucus, 177. branda, Stictonetta, 129. Branta, 43. jubata, 54. 324 INDEX Branta (Chlamidochen) juhata, 54. hrevirostris, Phalacrocorax, 191. , Scceophcethon rubricauda, 303. Bulweria, 237. caledonicus, Nycticorax, 93. calif ornica, Sula dactylatra, 229. cmMda, Piscatrix, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 209, 225, 230. , Sula, 208, 215. candidus, Phoethon, 309, 311. Cape Barren Goose, 44. capensis, Dysporus, 204. , Sula, 204. , SuUta, 223. capillatus, Garbo, 171. , Phalacrocorax, 168. Garbo, 161. albiventer, 171. ater, 174, 176. ater, 175. sulcirostris, 175. capillatus, 171. carbo novcekollandim, 165, steadi, 170. westralis, 165. dimidiatus, 190, 192. fUarmntosus, 171. fuscescens, 180, 186. fuscescens, 180. tunneyi, 180. gouldi, 179. tunneyi, 180. hypoleucos, 179, 184, 186, 187. leucocephala, 171. melanoleucos, 189. melanoleucos, 1 90. melvillensis, 190, melanoleucus, 190. novcehollandice, 164. raptensis, 171. squamatus, 175. sulcirostris, 163, 174, sulcirostris, 175. varius hypoleucos, 184. perthi, 184, 187. carbo, Phalacrocorax, 161, 162, 164, 167, 168, 169, 170, 172. , carbo, 171. carboides, Graculus, 164. , PMacrocorax, 164, 165. Garbonarius, 161. caroliniana, Fregata, 246, 247. Garpophaga, 93. carunculata. Anas, 143. Gasarca, 77, 2, 6, 72, 73. castanea, 97. ferruginea, 77. Gasarca rutila, 2. tadernoides, 79. tadornoides, 78, 82, 83. Gasarka, 77. tadornoides, 78. castanea. Aims, 97, 100, 107. , (Virago), 107. , Gasarca, 97. , Mareca, 6, 97, 105. , Virago, 97, 95, 96, 98, 105, 106, 113. , castanea, 98. castjaneum, Nettion, 97, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112. , Nettium, 98, 99. catesbyi, Leptophcethon, 310. , Phcethon, 309, 310. Gatoptropelicanus, 312, 313. conspicillatus, 314, 312, 315. conspicillatus, 315. westralis, 315. perspicillatus, 313, 315. Gerconectes, 137. Gereopsis, 42, 5, 8, 9, 43, 46, 61. australis, 45. cinerea, 45. cinereus, 45. novcehollandice, 44, 6, 42, 50. georgi, 45, 50. Cereopsis, New Holland, 44, 46. chalconotus, Graculus, 176. , Phalacrocorax, 176. chalybeocephalus, Monarcha chalybeocephalus , 93. , Muscicapa, 93. chambeyroni, Tachypetes, 246, 259, 268, 273. Ghen, 43. Ghenalopex cegyptiaca, 2. lophotus, 53. Gheniscus, 32, 5, 33. coromandelianus, 32. albipennis, 35, 34. pulchellus, 38, 34, 39. Ghenonetta, 51, 5, 6, 8, 52. juhata, 53, 43, 51, 52, 54, 57, 82. Ghenopis, 10, 4, 8. y — — atrata, 12, 10, 13, 18, 21. U roberti, 13. Ghenopsis, 10. atrata, 13, 47. Ghlamidochen, 51 . Ghlamlydocken, 51. Ghlamydauchen, 51. jubatus, 53. Ghlamydochen, 51. juhata, 53. jubatus, 54. Ghloephaga, 52. juhata, 54. Ghloephaga, 5, 6. Ghoristopus, 23. 325 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. Choristopus melanoleucus, 26. semipalmatus, 25. cinerm, Cereopsis, 45. cinereus, Cereopsis, 45. circia, Querquedula, 115. Circus gouldi, 148. Clangula, 1 (Oxyura) australis, 138. Clypeata, 117. clypeata. Spatula, 117, 118, 119. Cnemiornis, 43. conspicillatus, Catoptropelicanus, 314, 312, 315. , conspicillatus, 315. Pelecanus, 314, 315, 316, 319, 320. , conspicillatus, 315. Cormorant, Black, 164. , Little, 189. , Black, 174. , Pied, 184. , White-breasted, 179. Cormoranus, 161. cornix, Corvus, 92. coromaudelianus, Cheniscus, 32. , Nettapus, 35. coromandelicus, Nettapus, 35. corone, Corvus, 92. Corvus cornix, 92. corone, 92. Cosmonetta, 1. cristatus, Graculus, 162. , Phalacrocorax, 162. , Vanellus, 185. Ctenanas, 67, 61. eytoni, 68. Cyanochen, 5, 52. cyanops, Sula, 200, 203, 226, 228, 233, 234, 235, 289. Cyanopterus, 114. Cygnus atratus, 12, 47. melanoleucus, 26. plutonius, 13. Cyrtopelicanus, 313. trachyrhynchus, 313. dactylatra, Parasula, 225. , Sula, 200, 203, 206, 226, 228. , dactylatra, 229. dampieri, Nyroca nyroca, 134. Darter, 195. , New Holland, 195. Demigretta sacra, 92. Dendrocycna, 2, 60. arcuata, 62. eytoni, 69. vagans 62. Dendrocygna, 60, 6, 61, 67. arcuata, 62, 64, 66, 69. {australis), 62, 66. Dendrocygna arcuata gouldi, 62, 66. eytoni, 64, 68, 70, 87. munna, 69. gouldi, 62, 66. javanica, 60, 66. australis, 62. gouldi, 62. peroni, 63. vagans, 62, 65. versicolor, 68. (Leptotarsis), eytoni, 69. {Leptotarsus), eytoni, 69. Dendronessa, 60. derbyi, Plotus novcehollandice, 196. dimidiatus, Carho, 190, 192. Diomedea adscensionis, 214, 216. piscatoria, 213, 214, 215. Disportis, 230. dorothece, Leptophoethon, 306. , Upturns, 307, 311. , PJmthon, 307. , Upturns, 292, 307. , Phoeton Upturns, 307. Duck, Black, 85. , Blue-billed, 138. , Eastern Musk, 147. , Freckled, 129. , Hawksbury, 53. , Lobated, 143. , Membranaceous, 124. , Mountain, 78. , New Holland, 124. , Pink-eared, 124. , Plumed Whistling, 68. , Western Musk, 143. , Whistling, 62. , White-eyed, 133. , Wood-, or Maned Goose, 53. dyotti, Morus serrator, 219. , Sula serrator, 219. , Sulita serrator, 219, 204, 223. Dysporus, 201, 202, 203, 204, 230. bassanus, 202. capensis, 204. sula, 231. Eastern Garganey Teal, 115. Lesser Frigate Bird, 282. — — Musk Duck, 147. Shoveler, 118. EcmeUs, 161. edwardsi, Lepturus, 292. , Phoeihon, 309, 310, 311. Erimistura, 136. Erismatura, 136, 8, 137. australis, 138. erubescens, Phcethon, 295, 298, 299. , rubricauda, 295, 300, 301, 302, 303. 326 INDEX. eytoni, Gtenanas, 68. , Dendrocycna, 69. , Dendrocygna, 64, 68, 70, 87. , (Leptotarsis), 69. , {Leptoiarsus), 69. , Leptotarsis, 2, 67, 68, 70. , R(^ja, 74. , Badjah, 74, 76. fa>sciata. Anas, 124. fasciatus, Malacorhyndkus, 125. ferruginea, Casarca, 77. fJber, Sula, 216, 231, 234, 235. fUamentosus, Garbo, 171. , Phalacrocorax, 167, 168, 169, 171. fimchii, Phalacrocorax, 191. flammea, Aluco, 209. favirhynchus, Phalacrocorax, 190, 192. flavirostris, Graucalus, 190. , Lepturus, 292. , Phoeihon, 309, 311. flavo-aurantius, Phoeihon, 310. flindersi, Badjah radjah, 75. Freckled Duck, 129. Fregata, 236, 154, 155, 156, 159, 237, 238, 292, 293. andrewk, 270, 274, 276, 277, 280, 287. aqvila, 240, 241, 242, 246, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 255, 256, 257, 259, 260, 261, 264, 268, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 280, 283. aquila, 251. minor, 249, 250, 251, 268, 273. palmer stoni, 240, 243, 259, 260. aquilus, 238. aneZ, 242, 243, 246, 249, 250, 252, 254, 257, 260, 261, 264, 267, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 281, 282, 283, 284, 286, 287, 288. ariel, 282, 239, 243, 276, 277, 286, 287. iredalei, 275, 276, 277, 287. tunnyi, 288, 239, 274, 276, 287, 290. caroliniana, 246, 247. nmgnificens, 275, 276, 277, 279, 280. minor, 236, 238, 245, 246, 249, 251, 256, 258, 259, 262, 264, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 281, 282, 286, 287. aldabrensis, 262, 267, 273, 276, 277, 279, 280. listeri, 240, 239, 241, 267, 271, 273, 280, 281. magnificens, 269, 274. minor, 265, 276, 277, 280. nicolli, 265, 273, 276, 277, 280. palmerstoni, 268, 273, 277, 280, 281. — ridgwayi, 269, 274, 276, 277, 280. rothschildi, 280, 281. strumosa, 268, 273. Fregata palmerstoni, 240. strumosa, 243, 246, 268. Fregatta, 236. Frigate Bird, Eastern Lesser, 282. , Greater, 240. , Western Lesser, 288, Fulica australis, 135. Fvligula, 2, 4. australis, 134. haeri, 134. fulvus, Leptophoethon, 308, 310. fttsca, Sula, 202, 231. fuscescens, Garbo, 180, 186. , fuscescens, 180. , Hydrocorax, 179, 182. , Hypoleucus, 179, 178, 180. fuscus, Leptopelicanus, 313. gaimardi, Stictocarbo, 162, 163, 177. Gannet, Australian, 219. , Brown (Booby), 231. , Masked, 226. , Red-legged, 210. Gennaeochen, 72. radjah, 74. georgi, Gereopsis novcehollandice, 45, 50. gesneri, Onocrotalus, 313. gibberifrons. Anas, 102, 107, 108. , Nettion, 87, 100, 102, 105, 108, 109, 110, 112. , Nettium, 102. , Virago, 95, 100, 102, 106. Goose, Black and White, 25. Cape Barren, 44. , Maned, or Wood-Duck, 53. , Pied, 25. , Semipalmated, 25. Teal, Green, 38. , White -quilled, 35. gouldi, Garbo, 179. , Gircus, 148. , Dendrocygna, 62, 66. , arcuata, 62, 66. , javanica, 62. ^ , Hypoleucus, 179. , varius,^ 185. , Phalacrocorax, 179, 181, 182, 183, 187. gracemeri, Phalacrocorax carbo, 167. gracilis. Anas, 107, 108, 112. Gtacvlus, 161, 162, 163. albiventris, 171. americanus, 171. carboides, 164. chalconotus, 176. cristatus, 162. leucogaster, 179. melanoleucus, 190. — — novoehollandi(B, 164. 327 THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA Graculus stictoce'phalns, 174. sulcirostris, 174. varius, 184. granti, Sula daetylatm, 229. Graumlus, 161. fLavirostris, 190. Greater Frigate Bird, 240, Green Goose-Teal, 38. -headed Teal, 97, 113. Grey or Slender Teal, 102 , 113. griseus, Anser, 45, 47. Gulosus, 162. Gymnura, 136. Halicem, 163, 188. leucomdas, 190. melanoleucus, 190. stictocephalus, 174. Halietor, 188. Halieus, 161, 162, 188. pygmcms, 162. hamiltoni, Anseranas semipalmata, 26. Hawksbury Duck, 53. Helieus, 188. Hemisula, 159, 200, 206, 209, 230. leucogaster plotus, 231. rogersi, 231. Histrionicus, 1. humeralis. Anas {Querquedula), 115. , Querquedula querquedula, 115. Hydrohates, 141. lohatus, 143. Hydrocorax, 161. fuscescens, 179, 182. melanoleueos, 189, 192. Hygrdbates, 141. lohatus, 143. Tiypoleucos, Carho, 179, 184, 186, 187. , varius, 184. Hypoleucus, 177, 157, 162, 163, 173. hougainvilUi, 177. fuscescens, 179, 178, 180. gouldi, 179. leucogaster, 179. varius, 162, 177, 184. gouldi, 185. hypoleucus, 184. perthi, 184, 178. whitei, 187. hypoleucus, Hypoleucus varius, 184. , Phalacrocorax, 177, 182, 183, 184. llyonetta, 131. australis, 134. indiana, Spatula clypeata, 118. indicus, Phalacrocorax carho, 171. iodotis. Areas, 125. iodotis, Malacorhynchus, 145. iredalei, Fregata arid, 275, 276, 277, 287. jamaicensis, Oxyura, 136. javanica, Dendrocygna, 60, 66. javanicus, Microcarho, 157. juhata. Anas, 53. , Bernicla, 53. , Branta, 54. , {Chlamidochen), 54. , Ghen